Blur on the retina due to higher-order aberrations: Comparison of eye growth models to experimental data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the simplest model of eye growth, the ocular optics uniformly scale upwards, as do monochromatic higher-order aberrations (HOA) and linear blur on the retina. However, measured HOA remain constant or decrease with growth in some species. A new model, which holds HOA and the associated linear blur on the retina constant, was used to predict changes in HOA and resulting image quality on the retina during growth, in each of chick, monkey, and human. Models used rates of growth in each of the three species. Angular optical quality on the retina due to HOA, and its metrics improved, in contrast to the constancy predicted by uniform scaling. The model with constant linear HOA blur predicts well the improvement in human optical quality between infant and adult. Overall, in chick and monkey, angular blur improves at a rate faster than that predicted by the constant linear blur model, implying that linear retinal blur due to HOA decreases with age. On the other hand, in chick, angular blur due to third-order aberrations decreased at a rate predicted by the constant linear blur model. Growth changes in retinal blur due to HOA are species dependent but can be better understood by comparison with the new model predictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".