Talk:Binocular vision

message: ok... two eyes... better field of view than one... but if the opposite to binocular vision is monocular vision - ie like a rabbit... 360 degrees field of view... even better?
kevin
82.32.0.254 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Binocular summation means that the detection threshold for a stimulus is lower with two eyes than with one."
Did you mean that the detection threshold for a stimulus is higher with two eyes than with one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.142.84 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. A threshold is the intensity of a stimulus for detection. Lower thresholds mean better sensitivity. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd have to agree with Eperotao; probably the main reason for the development of binocular vision would be for manipulations with the hands, closeby. Ofcouse this is speculation, mind you, but I reckon it's the most convincing argument. --Arthur Lugtigheid (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction 

message: The discussion of the evolutionary benefits of binocular vision is grossly oversimplified and probably wrong in several respects. It's not the distance between the eyes, but whether they face forward or not. Sperm whales have enormous distance between their eyes AND they are predators, but they don't have binocular vision. Fruit eating monkeys have binocular vision...Why? Do brachiators have stereoscopic vision so they can locate the next branch before they let go of the last? We need a more sophisticated discussion here.
Eperotao (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree with Eperotao; probably the main reason for the development of binocular vision would be for manipulations with the hands, closeby. Ofcouse this is speculation, mind you, but I reckon it's the most convincing argument. --Arthur Lugtigheid (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: complaint

message: I'm deleting the section on this guy. As far as I can tell, he apears to be a "theorist" with little to no actual scientific research backing up his claims. This is based on a the contents of this website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.192.207 (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florin Horicianu 

message: Pretty short of refs as an article, and misses some key issues such as the historical developemnt of the theories, etc. No need for a total rewrite, but a 50% rewrite is needed. History2007 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: "Evolution of Binocular Vision" by J.D. Pettigrew has some excellent descriptions of how binocular vision functions in mammals vs. birds, also touches on the historical development of theories mentioned by History2007 above. Could be a useful reference in the article's rewrite.Pedestrian65 (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential reference

message: The lead attempts to appeal to neurological researcher Manfred Fahle. I know nothing about neurobiology and have not heard of this guy but, as a general principle, mentioning the opinions of specific people is typically only appropriate if that person is especially authoritative in their field (e.g. quoting Charles Darwin in relation to evolution). I'm doubt Fahle rises to this level, much as I am sure he is capable researcher. As such, not only does it seem inappropriate to name him in the article, but I wonder if it is appropriate to state his conclusions as facts unless those conclusions reflect a broad scientific consensus (again, this is not my area so I would not presume to say one way or another).
-- MC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authoritative mention?