Talk:Visual field

message: Bitemporal and Binasal hemianopia are labeled incorrectly in their respective pictures.  They are actually reversed.  Thanks   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:544:4201:91FA:E9F2:AC3E:C96D:10A3 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have published quite a bit on the visual field, including an article in the Encyclopedia of Neuroscience; 3rd edition. It answers the main questions. It's on my homepage, but since it is not open access, I cannot just link to that paper. I will try and ask the editors whether it could be made available. Strasburger (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

message: There was a sentence in the introduction reading:
:"Visual field is sometimes confused with a field of view. The field of view is everything that at a given time causes light to fall onto the retina. This input is processed by the visual system, which computes the visual field as the output."
I have taken the liberty to delete that sentence: It was unsourced and, I believe, misleading. I replaced it by
:"The equivalent concept for optical instruments and sensors is the Field of View (FOV)" Strasburger (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   Hi, could you please find some time to make the distinction between the two more clear? Perhaps provide more complementary definitions, pointing out the similarities and differences between the two terms? At present, (Field of view): "the extent of the observable world that is seen at any given moment" adresses the topic from a POV quaite incomaptible with (Visual field): "spatial array of visual sensations available to observation in introspectionist psychological experiments". Also the section "Humans and animals" in FOW seem to speak about Visual field but that is not totally clear from the article. And when you look at the corresponding articles in other languages,  only Català, Deutsch, Español, Français, and Hrvatski have articles on both. In the other 25 languages only one term is used. So, in these 25 languages, can the same term be used (in scientific use) to cover both English/German/French terms, making the distinction stem rather from the methodology/discourse used, or do these articles confuse two distinct physical-physiological phenomena? I have no background in these matters just wondered how the two "terms" differ. Thanks, --WikiHannibal (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. The quick answer is, the concepts are different – not just methodologically – and should have separate entries in all languages. In a nutshell, the visual field is a concept applicable to humans and animals, and the FOV is a concept from optics. The differences should indeed be pointed out more clearly, and it should be made clearer that most of the section "Humans and animals" in FOV speaks about the visual field (and is thus somewhat off topic). I’ll try to come back to that when I have time. Strasburger (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted a few changes on the FOV page now to make the distinction more explicit. Have a look whether you find it clearer. Ultimately the section “Humans and Animals” in FOV might be moved to the end of that article because it is off topic (but that would be a major change). Strasburger (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Field of view 

message: This file is simple representation of visual field defect due to visual pathway lesions. It is in another language. It will be better if someone convert this to English and upload to this page. Ajeeshkumar4u (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph is indeed better suited than the present one because it is clearer. There is no need, though, to convert it to English -- similar illustrations are available in English. I will have a look. Strasburger (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Good work. Did a few language corrections and changed the classification of visual field defects. Strasburger (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual pathway lesions

message: The introductory paragraph used two incompatible definitions as synonymous, a perceptual definition by Smythies (1996), and a stimulus-oriented definition from ophthalmology that is more standardly used. I rephrased that paragraph to start out with the latter, putting Smythies’ definition second, with some explanations for better understanding. Strasburger (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of the visual field