Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:31:31.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Tunable Optics in Nature

from Part I - Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2015

Robert Brunner
Affiliation:
Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany
Erik Förster
Affiliation:
Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany
Hans Zappe
Affiliation:
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
Claudia Duppé
Affiliation:
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In general, Nature's optical solutions are characterized by a perfectly balanced adjustment between vital functionality and simplicity. In other words, evolution made sure that natural systems are only equipped with the absolute necessities. Nice-to-have features, i.e. additional but dispensable features, are generally amiss. The enormous diversity of visual perception systems found in the animal kingdom bears witness to Nature's wealth of solutions, which have evolved to reveal individual perfect adaption to various living condition. In many cases, the optimized visual system consists of a tailored combination of a simple basic optical system, which offers only limited optical performance, and variable, deformable, or movable components. It is only the combination of both optical characteristics and tunable functionality that provides living beings with an optimized and well-adapted visual overall system.

This is most strongly ascertained by our own, the human, visual perception system. If we consider only the image quality of the human eye, it must be said that the optical performance is rather moderate. The mere optical capability of high resolution is limited to a very small angle of about 1◦ and our eyes are very prone to significant chromatic aberrations. As early as the nineteenth century, the physiologist and physician Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894), whose research significantly contributed to the scientific understanding of the working principle of the human visual perception system, had already observed the poor imaging quality of the human eye and poked fun at its aberrations. He said: “Now, it is not too much to say that, if an optician wanted to sell me an instrument which had all these defects, I should think myself quite justified in blaming his carelessness in the strongest terms, and giving him back his instrument.” (Helmholtz 1893). In the same vein, he said: “Of course, I shall not do this with my eyes, and shall be only too glad to keep them as long as I can.”

It is the second part of Helmholtz's statement in particular that expresses our own subjective impression of the high quality of our “eyes.” Despite the objective fact of a strongly aberration-affected optical performance, the subjective overall impression offers a high-quality perception of the whole surrounding world.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atchison, D. A. (1995), ‘Accommodation and presbyopia’, Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 15(4), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axelrod, D., Lerner, D. & Sands, P. (1988), ‘Refractive index within the lens of a goldfish eye determined from the paths of thin laser beams’, Vision Research 28(1), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, R. H. (1977), Movements of the Eyes, University of Michigan, Pion.
Cronin, T. (2012), ‘Visual optics: accommodation in a splash’, Current Biology 22(20), R871–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curcio, C. A., Sloan, K. R., Kalina, R. E. & Hendrickson, A. E. (1990), ‘Human photoreceptor topography’, The Journal of Comparative Neurology 292(4), 497–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ditchburn, R. W. & Ginsborg, B. L. (1952), ‘Vision with a stabilized retinal image’, Nature 170, 36–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleishman, L. J., Howland, H., Howland, M. J., Rand, A. S. & Davenport, M. L. (1988), ‘Crocodiles don't focus underwater’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 163(4), 441–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gál, J., Horváth, G., Clarkson, E. N. & Haiman, O. (2000), ‘Image formation by bifocal lenses in a trilobite eye?’, Vision Research 40(7), 843–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmartin, B. (1995), ‘The aetiology of presbyopia: a summary of the role of lenticular and extralenticular structures’, Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 15(5), 431–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glasser, A. & Howland, H. C. (1996), ‘A history of studies of visual accommodation in birds’, Quarterly Review of Biology 71(4), 475–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, R. L., Ross, H. E. & Moray, N. (1964), ‘The curious eye of copilia’, Nature 201(4925), 1166–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanke, F. D. & Dehnhardt, G. (2009), ‘Aerial visual acuity in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) as a function of luminance’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 195(7), 643–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanke, F. D., Dehnhardt, G., Schaeffel, F. & Hanke, W. (2006), ‘Corneal topography, refractive state, and accommodation in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina)’, Vision Research 46(6–7), 837–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkness, L. (1977), ‘Chameleons use accommodation cues to judge distance’, Nature 267(5609), 346–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harkness, L. & Bennet-Clark, H. (1978), ‘The deep fovea as a focus indicator’, Nature 272(5656), 814–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helmholtz, H. (1893), Popular Lectures on Scientific Subjects, Longmans, Green, London.Google Scholar
Hubel, D. H. (1988), Eye, Brain, and Vision, Scientific American Library, Distributed by W.H. Freeman New York.Google Scholar
Jagger, W. (1992), ‘The optics of the spherical fish lens’, Vision Research 32(7), 1271–1284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarbus, A. L. (1967), Eye Movements and Vision, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Karpestam, B., Gustafsson, J., Shashar, N., Katzir, G. & Kröger, R. H. (2007), ‘Multifocal lenses in coral reef fishes’, Journal of Experimental Biology 210(16), 2923–2931.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katzir, G. & Howland, H. C. (2003), ‘Corneal power and underwater accommodation in great cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis)’, Journal of Experimental Biology 206(5), 833–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, R. H. H., Campbell, M. C.W., Fernald, R. D. & Wagner, H.-J. (1999), ‘Multifocal lenses compensate for chromatic defocus in vertebrate eyes’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 184(4), 361–369.Google Scholar
Land, M. F. (1969), ‘Movements of the retinae of jumping spiders (salticidae: Dendryphantinae) in response to visual stimuli’, Journal of Experimental Biology 51, 471–493.Google ScholarPubMed
Land, M. F. & Nilsson, D.-E. (2002), Animal Eyes, Oxford Animal Biology Series, 1. publ. edn, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Land, M., Marshall, J., Brownless, D. & Cronin, T. (1990), ‘The eye-movements of the mantis shrimp Odontodactylus scyllarus (crustacea: Stomatopoda)’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 167(2), 155–166.Google Scholar
Levy, B. & Sivak, J. (1980), ‘Mechanisms of accommodation in the bird eye’, Journal of Comparative Physiology 137(3), 267–272.Google Scholar
Locket, N. (1992), ‘Problems of deep foveas’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology 20(4), 281–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machovsky-Capuska, G. E., Howland, H. C., Raubenheimer, D., Vaughn-Hirshorn, R., Wuersig, B., Hauber, M. E. & Katzir, G. (2012), ‘Visual accommodation and active pursuit of prey underwater in a plunge-diving bird: the Australasian gannet’, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279, 4118–4125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmström, T. & Kröger, R. H. (2006), ‘Pupil shapes and lens optics in the eyes of terrestrial vertebrates’, Journal of Experimental Biology 209(1), 18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, N. & Land, M. (1993a), ‘Some optical features of the eyes of stomatopods: 1. eye shape, optical axes and resolution’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 173(5), 565–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, N. & Land, M. (1993b), ‘Some optical features of the eyes of stomatopods: 2. ommatidial design, sensitivity and habitat’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 173(5), 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, R. & Bron, A. (2011), ‘The ageing lens and cataract: a model of normal and pathological ageing’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366(1568), 1278–1292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muntz, W. R. A. & Gwyther, J. (1989), ‘Short communication: the visual acuity of octopuses for gratings of different orientations’, Journal of Experimental Biology 142(1), 461–464.Google Scholar
Ott, M. (2006), ‘Visual accommodation in vertebrates: mechanisms, physiological response and stimuli’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 192(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ott, M. & Schaeffel, F. (1995), ‘A negatively powered lens in the chameleon’, Nature 373, 692–694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ott, M., Schaeffel, F. & Kirmse, W. (1998), ‘Binocular vision and accommodation in prey-catching chameleons’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 182(3), 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, A. (1972), ‘Cephalopods and fisch: the limits of convergence’, Biological Reviews 47(2), 241–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, J. D. (1986), ‘The evolution of binocular vision’, in J. D. H., Pettigrew, ed., Visual Neuroscience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 208–222.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, J. D., Collin, S. P. & Fritsches, K. (2000), ‘Prey capture and accommodation in the sandlance, Limnichthyes fasciatus (creediidae; teleostei)’, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 186(3), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, J. D., Collin, S. P. & Ott, M. (1999), ‘Convergence of specialised behaviour, eye movements and visual optics in the sandlance (teleostei) and the chameleon (reptilia)’, Current Biology 9(8), 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poteser, M. & Kral, K. (1995), ‘Visual distance discrimination between stationary target in praying mantis: an index of the use of motion parallax’, Journal of Experimental Biology 198, 2127–2137.Google Scholar
Pumphrey, R. (1948), ‘The theory of the fovea’, Journal of Experimental Biology 25(3), 299–312.Google Scholar
Riggs, L. & Ratliff, F. (1952), ‘The effects of counteracting the normal movements of the eye’, Journal of the Optical Society of America 42, 872–873.Google Scholar
Robison, B. H. & Reisenbichler, K. R. (2008), ‘Macropinna microstoma and the paradox of its tubular eyes’, Journal Information 2008(4), 780–784.Google Scholar
Ross, C. F. (2004), ‘The tarsier fovea: functionless vestige or nocturnal adaptation?’, in C. F., Ross & R. F., Kay, eds, Anthropoid origins: new visions, Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects, Springer US, Boston, MA, pp. 477–537.Google Scholar
Roth, L. S., Lundström, L., Kelber, A., Kröger, R. H. & Unsbo, P. (2009), ‘The pupils and optical systems of gecko eyes’, Journal of Vision 9(3), 27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaeffel, F. & Mathis, U. (1991), ‘Underwater vision in semi-aquatic european snakes’, Naturwissenschaften 78(8), 373–375.
Schaeffel, F., Murphy, C. J. & Howland, H. C. (1999), ‘Accommodation in the cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis)’, Journal of Experimental Biology 202(22), 3127–3134.Google Scholar
Sivak, J. (1982), ‘Optical properties of a cephalopod eye (the short finned squid, Illex illecebrosus)’, Journal of Comparative Physiology 147(3), 323–327.Google Scholar
Sivak, J. & Millodot, M. (1977), ‘Optical performance of the penguin eye in air and water’, Journal of Comparative Physiology 119(3), 241–247.Google Scholar
Snyder, A. W. & Miller, W. H. (1978), ‘Telephoto lens system of falconiform eyes’, Nature 275, 127–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Somiya, H. & Tamura, T. (1973), ‘Studies on the visual accommodation in fishes’, Japanese Journal of Ichthyology 20(4), 193–206.Google Scholar
Squire, L. R. H., ed. (2013), Fundamental Neuroscience, 4th edn, Academic Press, Amsterdam.
Steenstrup, S. & Munk, O. (1980), ‘Optical function of the convexiclivate fovea with particular regard to notosudid deep-sea teleosts’, Journal of Modern Optics 27(7), 949–964.Google Scholar
Stowasser, A., Rapaport, A., Layne, J. E., Morgan, R. C. & Buschbeck, E. K. (2010), ‘Biological bifocal lenses with image separation’, Current Biology 20(16), 1482–1486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strod, T., Arad, Z., Izhaki, I. & Katzir, G. (2004), ‘Cormorants keep their power: visual resolution in a pursuit-diving bird under amphibious and turbid conditions’, Current Biology 14(10), R376–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walls, G. L. (1942), The Vertebrate Eye and Its Adaptive Radiation, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., Cranbrook Institute of Science.Google Scholar
Weale, R. (1989), ‘Presbyopia toward the end of the 20th century’, Survey of Ophthalmology 34(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, C. R., Day, N., Butler, P. J. & Martin, G. R. (2007), ‘Vision and foraging in cormorants: more like herons than hawks?’, PLoS One 2(7), e639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Tunable Optics in Nature
    • By Robert Brunner, Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany, Erik Förster, Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany
  • Edited by Hans Zappe, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany, Claudia Duppé, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
  • Book: Tunable Micro-optics
  • Online publication: 05 December 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139506052.002
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Tunable Optics in Nature
    • By Robert Brunner, Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany, Erik Förster, Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany
  • Edited by Hans Zappe, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany, Claudia Duppé, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
  • Book: Tunable Micro-optics
  • Online publication: 05 December 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139506052.002
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Tunable Optics in Nature
    • By Robert Brunner, Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany, Erik Förster, Ernst Abbe University of Applied Sciences, Jena, Germany
  • Edited by Hans Zappe, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany, Claudia Duppé, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
  • Book: Tunable Micro-optics
  • Online publication: 05 December 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139506052.002
Available formats
×