Lens density — where it appears
Named by 2 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A template cannot place a point
This collection's model of an eye is good to a few tenths of a per cent at predicting what a cone catches, which is far more than enough to place a spectrum. Asked where that eye's confusion points are, it puts the protanope's at (0.99, 0.20) against a measured (0.75, 0.25) and the deuteranope's anywhere from (1.1, −0.5) to (−18, 11) depending on which stimuli the fit was made over.
A trade between matrices, not people
Across the space of possible bases, adapting well and discriminating well pull in opposite directions — the two optima sit at the ends of an empty diagonal. Across a population of actual observers the same two costs move weakly together, at a correlation of +0.29. The trade-off is a property of the set of matrices somebody could choose, not of the eyes anybody has. One measurement inside the population does trade, and it is the macular pigment.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
BasisCone fundamentalsMacular pigmentAnisotropyChromatic adaptationCondition numberConfusion pointCorrelationDichromacyIdentifiabilityLeast-squaresObserver variability