Part 56

By means of an instrument to be presently described, the ophthalmoscope, it is possible to view directly the whole surface of the retina, and to observe the inverted images of the objects there depicted. It is thus observed that it is only on the parts near the yellow spot that the images are formed with clear and sharp definition. Away from this the definition is less perfect; and besides the diminished sensitiveness of the retina, this circumstance contributes to the vagueness of the visual picture, although the falling off in clearness of vision at a very little distance from the yellow spot is far more marked than the loss of definition in the image there formed.

Until within the last few years it has been most confidently asserted by many authors that the eye, considered as an _optical instrument_, is absolutely perfect, and entirely free from certain defects to which artificial instruments are liable. Thus Dr. W. B. Carpenter states, in his “Animal Physiology” (1859): “The eye is much more remarkable for its perfection as an optical instrument than we might be led to suppose from the cursory view we have hitherto taken of its functions; for, by the peculiarities of its construction, certain faults and defects are avoided, to which all ordinary optical instruments are liable.” Among the imperfections which are completely corrected in the eye, he names “spherical aberration” and “chromatic aberration”—both of which give rise to certain defects in optical instruments. But by recent careful investigations it has been conclusively shown that the eye is not free from chromatic aberration; that it has defects analogous to spherical aberration; and that there are, besides, certain optical imperfections in its structure, which are avoided in the artificial instruments. Professor Helmholtz, one of the most distinguished of German mathematicians, physicists, and physiologists, whose great work on “Physiological Optics” is the most complete treatise on the subject which has ever appeared, is so far from considering the eye as possessed of all optical perfections that he remarks that, should an optician send him an instrument having like _optical_ defects, he would feel justified in sending it back. The defects which may be traced in the eye, _considered as an optical instrument_, do not, however, he admits, detract from the excellence of the eye _considered as the organ of vision_.

When we find that Sir Isaac Newton pointed out the chromatic aberration of the eye two centuries ago—when we find that D’Alembert, in 1767, proved that the lenses of the eye might have as great a dispersive power as glass without the want of achromatism necessarily becoming noticeable—when we find that the celebrated optician Dolland, the inventor of the achromatic lens, showed that the refractions which take place in the eye all tend to bring the violet rays towards the axis more than the red—when we find that Maskelyne the astronomer, Wollaston the physicist, Fraunhofer the optician, and other scarcely less distinguished men of science, have made actual measurements of the distances of the _foci_ in the human eye for the different rays of the spectrum—when we find how these defects have so long ago been observed, examined, and measured as to their amount—the persistence with which writer after writer has asserted the achromatism of the human eye appears so extraordinary, that it can only be accounted for by the prevalence of the preconceived notion that the eye is absolutely perfect—a notion not without its reason and grounds, in the fact of the exquisite adaptation of the organ of sight to the needs of humanity.

Although the want of achromatism in the eye thus escapes ordinary notice, it is, on the other hand, easy to render it evident by simple experiments. If, for example, we view from a certain distance the solar spectrum projected on a white screen, it will be found that, when we see the red end quite distinctly, the violet end will, at the same time, appear vague and confused, and _vice versâ_. The author believes that the following very simple experiment will at once convince any person that the fact is as stated. Procure a small piece of blue or _violet_ stained glass, and another piece of _red_ glass, and, having cut out of an opaque screen a rectangular opening, say ½ in. long and ¼ in. wide, place the glasses close to it, so that one-half the opening is covered by the red glass and the other half by the violet glass, the two being placed so that, on looking through the screen, a violet square and a red square are visible. The opaque screen may be made of black paper, cardboard, or tinfoil, and the edges of the opening must be cut perfectly even. On looking through this arrangement, held at a distance of about two feet from the eye, both squares may be seen distinctly by a person of ordinary vision; but, at a distance of five inches from the eye, he will find it impossible to see the squares otherwise than with vague and ill-defined edges. This is because the crystalline lens cannot adapt its curvature so as to bring the rays from the object to a focus on the retina. Now, by trial, the nearest distance at which each of the coloured squares becomes visible may be found, and it will be observed, that the violet square is first sharply defined at a less distance than the red, whereas, if the eye brought the red and violet rays to a focus at the same point, the smallest distance of distinct vision would coincide in both cases.

The reader may observe the same fact for himself, in even a still simpler manner, by turning to Fig. 238, page 461. When the white circle is viewed by one eye, at a distance of about a foot, and an opaque screen, such as a coin, is held close to the eye, so that the pupil is half covered by it, the one side of the white circle will appear bordered by a narrow fringe of blue, and the other side by a narrow fringe of orange. If the opaque screen be shifted from one side of the pupil to the other, the colours will change places, the orange appearing always on the same side of the white circle as the screen is held before the eye. The same appearances are presented in a still more marked degree when the full moon is made the subject of the experiment.

The diagram, Fig. 239, shows the course of the red and violet rays from a luminous point, A, the refraction being supposed to take place at B_{1} B_{2}. The violet rays after refraction form the cone, B_{1}, E, B_{2}, and E is their focus; the red rays form the cone, B_{1}, F, B_{2}, and have a focus at F. The position of the retina would be intermediate between E and F, and is indicated by C_{1}, C_{2}. It will be noticed that the violet rays cross, and are received on the retina in the same circle, G G, so that the colours, then blended, would be separately imperceptible; but the point would produce a diffused circular image of the blended colours.

In viewing an object—the moon, for example—the accommodation of the eye is like that indicated in the diagram. The distinct image due to the red rays would be formed behind the retina, and that due to the violet rays would be in front of it. In the image on the retina the most intense rays—such as the orange, yellow, and green—are those which are blended by the adjustment of the eye, and the red and violet form images more out of focus (to use a common expression), and a very little larger than the more intense image. We might expect that a white disc would therefore appear with a fringe of colour, resulting from a mixture of red and violet; but the fringe is too narrow, and the colour itself too feeble, to become perceptible. When, however, the pupil of the eye is half covered, the red and violet images are displaced in different directions, the position of the retina being too far forward for the one, and too far back for the other. The coincidence therefore ceasing, the colours show themselves at the margins of the image.

The non-perception under ordinary circumstances of the chromatic aberration of the eye is largely due to the greater intensity of the colours which differ least in their refrangibilities. The clearness of our vision does not, therefore, practically suffer from this defect of the eye. Professor Helmholtz constructed lenses which rendered his eyes really achromatic, and looking through these when the pupil was half covered, no coloured fringes were seen at the edges of dark or light objects, or when the objects were looked at with an imperfect accommodation of the eye. He was, however, unable to detect any increase of clearness or distinctness of vision by the correction.

The eye is also subject to other aberrations and irregular refractions, which are special to itself; for example, with moderately illuminated objects the crystalline lens produces images apparently well defined, and nothing is visible to suggest the absence of uniformity in its structure. But when the light is intense, and concentrated in a small object surrounded by a dark field, the irregular structure of the crystalline lens shows itself in the most marked manner. Every one must have noticed the appearance presented by the distant street-lamps on a dark night, and by the stars. The latter we know to be for us mere points of light, and their images produced by perfect lenses would also be mere points; instead of which we see what seem to be rays issuing from the star, an appearance which has given rise to the ordinary representation of a star as a figure having several rays. That no such rays actually do emanate from the real star may be easily proved: first, by concealing the luminous point from view, by means of a small object held up as a screen. If the rays had any existence outside of the eye, they would still be seen; instead of which, the whole of them disappear when the luminous point, or, in the case of the street-lamp, when the flame, is covered by the screen. A second proof that the origin of the phenomenon is in the eye, and not in the object, is afforded by the fact that if, while attentively observing the rays, we incline the head, the rays turn with the eyes, so that when the head is resting on the shoulder the ray which appeared vertical becomes horizontal. The cause of these divergences from the regular image lies in the fact of the crystalline lens being built up of fibres which have refractive powers somewhat different from that of the intermediate substance. These fibres are arranged in layers parallel to the surfaces of the crystalline lens, and the direction of the fibres in each layer is generally from the centre to the circumference; but towards the axis they form, by bending, a kind of six-rayed figure, as shown in Fig. 240, which represents the arrangement of the fibres of the external layers of the lens. In the outermost layers the branches of the star-shaped figure are subdivided into secondary branches, which give rise to more complicated figures. When we view by night a very brilliant but small light, even these subdivisions may be traced in the radiating figure.

The light which enters the eye is partly absorbed by the black pigment of the choroid, and partly sent back by diffused reflection from the retina through the crystalline lens and pupil. The image of a luminous body as depicted on the retina of another person cannot be seen by us under ordinary circumstances, because, by the principle of reversibility already mentioned as of universal application in optics, the rays which issue from the retinal images are refracted on leaving the eye, and follow the same paths by which they entered it, so that they are sent back to the object. An observer cannot see the retinal image of a candle in another person’s eye, unless he allows the rays to enter his own, and this cannot be done directly, because the head of the observer would be interposed between the candle and the eye observed, and the light would then be intercepted. By holding a piece of unsilvered plate glass vertically, we may reflect the light of a candle into the eye of another person, and then the light thrown out from the retinal image of the candle will, on again meeting the surface of the glass, be in part reflected to its source, and in part pass through the glass, on the other side of which it may be received into the eye of an observer. The positions of the observed and observing eye may be described as exactly opposite to and near each other, while the candle is placed to one side in the plane separating the two eyes, and the glass is held so that it forms an angle of 45° with the line joining the pupils. Under these circumstances the observer may see the light at the back of the eye, but he will not be able to distinguish anything clearly, because his own eye cannot accommodate itself so as to bring to a focus the rays coming from the retina of the other, since these rays are refracted by the media through which they emerge. But, by means of suitable lenses interposed between the two eyes, the retina and all its details may be distinctly seen and examined. Such an arrangement of lenses and a reflecting surface constitute the instrument called the _ophthalmoscope_ (οφθαλμος, _the eye_) of which there are many forms, but all constructed on the principle just indicated. This principle was first pointed out by Helmholtz, who described the first ophthalmoscope in 1851.

Ruete’s ophthalmoscope is represented in Fig. 241. The parts of the instrument are supported on a stand, C, and about the vertical axis of this the column, D, and the arms, H and K, can turn freely and independently; E is a concave metallic mirror, about 3 in. in diameter, and having an aperture in its centre through which the observer, B, looks. The arm, H, merely carries a black opaque screen, which serves to shield the eye of B from the light of the lamp, and to reduce, if required, the amount of light passing through the aperture in the mirror. The arm, K, which is about a foot in length, carries two uprights which slide along it, and in each of these slides a rod bearing a lens, which can thus be adjusted into any required position. The instrument is used in an apartment where all light but that of the lamp can be excluded. In the instrument just described an inverted image is obtained, which is sufficient for ordinary medical purposes, but this construction does not allow of the examination of retinal images, which is best performed with an instrument having a plane mirror.

The appearance presented by the back of the eye when viewed in the ophthalmoscope is represented in Fig. 242. The retina appears red, except at the place where the optic nerve enters, which is white. On the reddish ground the retinal blood-vessels can be distinguished; A, A, A, branches of the retinal artery, have a brighter red colour, and more strongly reflect the light than the branches, B, B, B, of the retinal vein. Among these, and especially towards the margin, are seen, more or less distinctly, the broader vessels of the choroid. Above the optic nerve and a little to the right may be observed the _fovea centralis_.

During the last twenty years the ophthalmoscope has been the chief means of extending the knowledge of oculists regarding the diseased and healthy conditions of the eye. In this way the substance of the lens and the state of the humours can be directly seen, the causes of impaired vision can be discovered, and the nature of many maladies made out with certainty. This modern invention, by which the interesting spectacle of the interior of the living eye can be observed, has therefore been far from proving a barren triumph of science. Many insidious maladies can thus be detected, and may be successfully treated before the organ has become hopelessly diseased. In some cases the ophthalmoscope gives the most certain evidence of the existence of obscure and unsuspected diseases of other parts of the body.

_VISUAL IMPRESSIONS_.

Everybody knows that, however well the flat picture of an object may imitate the colours and forms of nature, we are never deceived into supposing that we have the real object before us. There must, therefore, be something different in the conditions under which we see real objects from those under which we view their pictures. The most favourable circumstances for receiving an illusive impression of solidity from a flat picture, is when we view it from a fixed position and with one eye. This is because one means by which we unconsciously estimate distances depends upon the changes in the perspective appearances of objects caused by changes in our point of view. In many cases these changes in the perspective are the only means we have of judging of the relative distances of objects. But there is another circumstance which is still more intimately connected with our perception of solidity. Each eye receives a slightly different image of the objects before us (unless these be extremely remote), inasmuch as they are viewed from a different point. When the objects are very near, the two retinal images may differ considerably, as the reader may convince himself by viewing with each eye, alternately, objects immediately before him, while the other eye is closed, and the head all the while motionless. The nearer objects will plainly appear to shift their positions as seen against the back-ground of the more distant objects; and a somewhat more careful observation will reveal changes of perspective, or apparent form, in every one of these objects. An extreme case is presented in that of a playing card, or thin book, held in the plane which divides the eyes. The back or the face, the one side or the other, will be seen, according as the right or the left eye is opened. If we close the left eye, the displacement and change of apparent form produced by a slight movement of the head are sufficiently obvious; a movement of the head 2½ in. to the left causes a decided change in the relative positions of adjacent objects. It is plain, however, that it is precisely from a point 2½ in. to the left that the left eye views these objects, and hence the perspective appearance seen by the left eye must have the difference due to this shifting of the point of view.

On the other hand, if one looks at a picture, or flat surface, placed immediately in front, no change in the relative positions of its parts is discernible by viewing it with either eye alternately. Not but that there is a difference in the retinal images in the two cases, but there is an absence of any point of comparison by which the change may be judged. If we take a photograph of a statue, it will, when viewed by one or the other eye, present the difference of the retinal images which is due to a flat surface; the parts of the photographic image will be of slightly different proportions as seen by each eye. If, instead of the photograph we have before our eyes a statuette, each eye will see a quite different view: the right eye will see a portion which is invisible to the left eye, and _vice versâ_, and, in fact, we shall see more than half round the object. Here, then, we have certain differences of the retinal pictures when solid objects are viewed, and these differences by innumerable repetitions have, unconsciously to ourselves, become associated with notions of solidity, of something having length, breadth, and depth, or thickness. The marvellous delicacy of these perceptions will be alluded to hereafter.

Let us suppose that the lenses of two cameras are fixed in the positions occupied by the two eyes, and that a photograph is taken in each camera, the subject being, for example, a statuette. It is obvious that the differences of the two photographs would correspond with the differences of the two retinal images, and that, if a person could view with the right eye only the photograph taken in the right-hand camera, and with the left eye the left-hand photograph only, there would be formed on the retinæ of his eyes images very nearly corresponding with those which the actual object would produce, and the result would be, if these retinal pictures occupied the proper position on the eyes, that the impression of solidity would be produced, which is called the _stereoscopic effect_.

This may be done without the aid of any instrument, as almost any person may discover after some trials with nothing but a _stereoscopic slide_, if he can succeed in maintaining the optic axis of his eyes quite parallel. In such a case he will observe the stereoscopic effect by the fusing together, as it were, into one sensation, of the impression received by the right eye from the right photograph, with that received by the left eye from the left photograph. But as each eye will, at the same time, have the photograph intended for the other in the field of view, the observer will be conscious of a non-stereoscopic image on each side of the central stereoscopic one. These outside images are, however, very distracting, for the moment the attention is in the least directed to them, the optic axes converge to the one side or the other, losing their parallelism, and the stereoscopic effect vanishes, because the images no longer fall in the usual positions on the retinæ. It is, in consequence, only after some practice that one succeeds in readily viewing stereoscopic slides in this manner, but the acquirement is a convenient one when a person has rapidly to inspect a number of such slides, for he can see them stereoscopically without putting them in the instrument. Many persons, however, find great difficulty in acquiring this power. In such cases it is well to begin by separating the two photographs by means of a piece of cardboard, covered with black paper on both sides. When this is held in the plane between the eyes, each eye sees only its own photograph, and the observer is not troubled with the two exterior images. After a little practice in this way, the cardboard may usually be dispensed with, and the observer will insensibly have acquired the habit of viewing the slides stereoscopically, without any aid whatever.

Instruments have, however, been contrived which enable one to obtain the desired result without effort; and one form of these is now tolerably well known to everybody. The first stereoscope was the invention of Wheatstone. The reflecting stereoscope is represented in Fig. 243, and consists essentially of two plane metallic mirrors inclined to the front of the instrument at angles of 45°, so that in each of them the observer sees only the design which belongs to it. The rays reach the eyes as if they came from images placed in front of the observer; and the two images having the proper differences, produce together the impression of solid objects.