mental coach wrote:
How Your Eye Works
1. Light reflects off an object and enters the visual system through the front of your eye called the cornea.
2. After the light passes through the cornea, it passes through the front chamber of the eye.
3. After the light passes through the front chamber, it passes through the pupil.
4. The iris, the colored part of your eye, regulates the amount of light that passes through your pupil.
5. The light then passes through the lens into the interior chamber of the eye.
So far, not too inaccurate.
6. There, the image passes through the jelly-like fluid called the Vitreous Humor.
As it did in the front chamber of the eye (the aqueous humour)
7. After passing through the Vitreous Humor, the image reaches the Retina, home of the rods and cones that process the image into a format the brain can interpret. This is where the image flips upside down.
No, the image flips as a result of passing through the lens. It's upside down long before hitting the retina ("long before" in terms of photons that is).
8. The retina may or may not send the image to your Optic Nerve and the Optic Nerve finally sends the information to your visual cortex of your brain
Nope.
9. Your brain converts the information from your Optic Nerve into the nerve impulses repesenting a picture of the object you see. You must acknowledge the eye can only focus on an object about 18 to 20 inches from the eye. Of course wide vision can see more but not with any measurable accuracy.
Nope.
Looking at the past medical reports and findings, it is determined that we have one second to fire a rifle or pistol or shotgun before the eyes go blank and the eyes stop seeing any thing external of the eyes themselves. This blanking action is called the Perky effect after research findings by Doctor W.C. Perky, M.D. in 1910.
The "Perky Effect" does technically exist; but it's not quite so clear-cut.
From the
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Psychology:
3.3 The Perky Experiment
Titchener's theories, and, to a very large extent, the introspection based experimental methods he used to test and refine them, have long since fallen into disrepute.[4] However, one series of experiments carried out in Titchener's laboratory, by his student C.W. Perky (1910), has achieved something of a classic, even mythic, status in the literature on imagery. Perky asked her subjects to fixate a point on a screen in front of them and to visualize various objects there, such as a tomato, a book, a leaf, a banana, an orange, or a lemon. As the subjects did this, and unbeknownst to them, a faint patch of color, of an appropriate size and shape, and just above the normal threshold of visibility, was back projected (in soft focus) onto the screen. Apart from on a couple of occasions when the projection apparatus was mishandled, none of Perky's subjects (who ranged from a ten year old child to the trained and experienced introspectors of Titchener's laboratory) ever realized that they were experiencing real percepts; they took what they "saw" on the screen to be entirely the products of their imagination. In fact, however, the projections did influence their experiences: some subjects expressed surprise at finding themselves imagining a banana "upright" rather than the horizontally oriented one they had been trying for; one was surprised to wind up imagining an elm leaf after trying for a maple. On the other hand, purely imaginary details were also reported: One subject could "see" the veins of the leaf; another claimed that the title on the imagined book was readable.
It may be very tempting to take Perky's experiment as a clear demonstration that there are no differences in kind between the subjective experiences of perception and imagery. Although perception is usually more vivid (or, as Hume put it, has greater "vivacity") than mental imagery, the experiment appears to show that this is, at best, a mere difference in degree, and cannot guarantee that we will not systematically confuse the two. However, it is notable that the projected color patches in Perky's setup were clearly seen as such by witnesses who were not actively striving to form an image (Perky, 1910). Furthermore, Segal (1971b) reports that her initial attempts to replicate Perky's findings were a failure. Her subjects spontaneously noticed the projected color patches. In order to reproduce "the Perky effect," Segal found it necessary to induce a prior state of relaxation in her subjects (Segal & Nathan, 1964; Segal, 1971b).[5]
In her replication and extension of Perky's work, Segal also tried projecting faint pictures that were quite different from the mental image she had asked her subjects to form. In some cases the relaxed subjects assimilated even this incongruous stimulus into their imagery, and still did not realize that a real visual stimulus was influencing their experience. For example, some subjects were asked to imagine a New York skyline whilst a faint image of a tomato was projected on the screen. Several of them failed to notice the tomato, but reported imagining New York at sunset (Segal, 1972). Nevertheless, Segal concludes from her extensive experimental studies that the Perky effect does not show that mental images and faint percepts are inherently indistinguishable. Rather, the confusion between image and percept seems to occur because the processes involved in forming a mental image of the requested type interfere with the normal utilization of the mechanisms of perception, and raise perceptual detection thresholds (Segal, 1971b; Segal & Fusella, 1971).
In other words, if you're strongly imagining what you want to see, and you then introduce a faint image to the eye, you may not perceive that image as it is projected; but instead see something of a mix between your imagination and the image.
In target shooting, however, we have a brightly-lit image, and we don't stare at it for anywhere
near the amount of time that the Perky effect operates in, and we're not in a relaxed state. Citing the Perky Effect isn't valid for us, therefore (not without specific experimentation anyway). There
are reasons why staring at the image for more than a few seconds isn't a good one from the point of view of hitting the ten - but they have more to do with overexposing the retinal cells (not to mention wobbling about more as your hold degenerates) than with the Perky Effect.
With this study we are becoming increasingly aware that sighting as we know it is incorrectly accomplished by the traditional methods and we should be looking at other methodologies.
Yes, because we're not seeing anyone shooting 600/600 in air rifle. Or prone 50m rifle. Or 300m rifle. Right?
If you don't comply with this timing you the shooter will not see the target after one second and the remainder of the shooting cycle will be completed in error. All of this is medically proven and correct.
Chet Skinner
Just to recap, no, it is not a medical fact.
In fact, it's been pretty well rebutted by modern research.
For how the eye and visual perception
really work, I recommend the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_system
(You work in a Computer Vision research group for seven years, you pick up a thing or two :D )