Six departures of the observer, each at a stated strength, under a 6500 K thermal radiator
Drawn at its defaults, in the observer, as a construction. It takes 10 options, and the essays below show what each placement asks of it.
Called by 54 essays
the blast radius of changing it
A neutral has no grid
A perfectly flat reflectance computes to exactly the same colour on every wavelength grid, through every slit, at every origin, and for every observer — not nearly, but to the last bit of a floating-point number. The condition is an identity rather than a limit, and what makes it one is the white point.
Where the model breaksThe reference had to be built
A five-nanometre error cannot be measured with five-nanometre data. Interpolating the tables and integrating finely measures the interpolator, not the grid — so the audit of this collection's index had to be run against an observer made of formulae, and the price of that is a residual of 1.42 ΔE₀₀ that every number in the section is read beside.
What the eye doesThe third factor is a construction
Every figure in this collection names its observer, which was the whole point. None of them says what an observer is made of. Three curves are not a measurement of the eye; they are a projection of one, with a field size, an age, a macular density, three peak wavelengths and a luminance constraint inside them.
What the eye doesA neutral is everyone's colour
Two eyes differing by fifty years of lens yellowing, by a factor of three in macular pigment and by six nanometres of long-wavelength peak agree about a grey card to four parts in ten thousand billion. The agreement is an identity rather than a coincidence, and it says exactly what an observer disagreement is a disagreement about.
What the eye doesA gain is not an observer
Multiply one eye's three cone sensitivities by 1.6, 0.7 and 2.4 and it is not a different eye. The white-point division is that multiplication's inverse, so the two agree exactly — and most of what a cone optical density change does is that multiplication, which is why the largest number in the table of individual variation is the one that matters least.
What the eye doesThree curves for one space
Rotate a set of colour-matching functions by an arbitrary invertible matrix, undo the rotation at the end, and the computed colour is identical to eight parts in a thousand million million. An observer is a three-dimensional subspace, not a set of curves, and the literature keeps reopening a question that is a theorem.
What the eye doesThe identity is in the eye's own coordinates
Two conditions in this round are exact — a gain on each cone is not a different observer, and three curves for one space are one observer. Imposed in a published cone space rather than the eye's own they leave 13.0 and 8.11 ΔE₀₀ standing. The identities belong to the physiology and every arithmetic in use works somewhere else.
What the eye doesThe lens is worst under tungsten
An ageing lens costs 4.38 ΔE₀₀ under a tungsten lamp and 2.20 under a fluorescent tube. The pigment peaks cost 2.84 under a three-emitter LED and 1.87 under the same tube. Six departures across six lights do not form a single ordering, which is what a pairing looks like and what a dominant term would not.
Difference and uniformityA departure is straight in the excitations
Walk a sample a quarter of the way from the light towards its own reflectance and exactly a quarter of the observer disagreement remains — in cone excitations, to two parts in a hundred. In ΔE₀₀ the same quarter leaves 0.347 where proportionality wants 0.428, and the discrepancy belongs entirely to the unit.
What the eye doesThe ranking is not stable
On a red pigment under daylight the six observer departures run from 2.38 down to 1.20 ΔE₀₀. Over forty-two surfaces two of them change places, the top two separate, and every one spans between a factor of ten and a factor of thirty-five. A chart of six bars is a chart of one example.
Where the model breaksThe grid hid the observer
On this collection's five-nanometre grid a three-laser projector's observer disagreement is exactly zero. On a quarter-nanometre grid it is 2.34 ΔE₀₀ and the largest in the table. The two audits of this round meet here, and the first one does not compound with the second — it removes it.
Matching and measuringOne wavelength is everyone's colour
A stimulus with a single wavelength in it produces the same relative cone excitations for every observer, exactly, whatever their age or field size. A display made of three such stimuli is where observers disagree most. Both statements are consequences of the same algebra, and the second is why laser projection has an observer problem.
What the eye doesA field size is two changes
The CIE publishes two standard observers and the difference between them is usually described as a field size. What actually differs is a macular pigment the light no longer passes through and a cone outer segment the light no longer travels the length of — two changes, in two places, with different signs and different sample dependence.
What the eye doesThe observer has no age
Five of the six arguments in this round are spreads — a population differs about them and the mean is a reasonable summary. The lens is not. Everybody's lens yellows in the same direction at about the same rate, so a standard observer with no age is not an average over a population; it is a snapshot of one moment in every reader's life.
What the eye doesThe rods are a fourth curve
Colorimetry has three numbers and a rod signal is a fourth. It cannot be absorbed by a gain, it cannot be removed by a white point, and adding a tenth of one to a three-curve observer costs 1.60 ΔE₀₀ — the narrowest distribution of the six departures, because an addition behaves quite differently from a filter.
What the eye doesThe macular is a band, not a filter
The lens absorbs everything below 500 nanometres with a long tail; the macular pigment absorbs forty nanometres either side of 460 and nothing else. The two have similar sizes and completely different distributions, and the reason is that one is broad and one is narrow — which is what decides whether a sample is affected at all.
What the eye doesThe peaks move the flanks
Shifting a cone's peak wavelength by three nanometres changes its sensitivity at its own maximum by almost nothing and on its flanks by several per cent, because a maximum is flat and a flank is steep. Every display primary sits on a flank, which is why a pigment polymorphism is worth 3.60 ΔE₀₀ under a laser projector.
Where the model breaksAn observer is a contract
Six departures, all above a delivery tolerance, none dominant, and no reader matching the standard on any of them. That would be a demolition if the standard observer were a description of an eye. It is not — it is an agreement about what a number means, and an agreement is not falsified by being unlike anybody.
Difference and uniformityA tolerance with an observer in it
A delivery tolerance is written in ΔE₀₀ against the 1931 observer, and six departures of that observer combine to about three of the same units on an ordinary saturated sample. A one-unit tolerance is being asked to contain a three-unit uncertainty that nothing in its budget mentions.
What it takes to deliver itThe instrument is one observer exactly
A spectrophotometer has no observer uncertainty. It computes through the 1931 tables to the last bit, reproducibly, forever — which is its whole value and is also why it cannot report the three colour differences of observer spread between itself and whoever is looking at the sample.
What a camera doesThe chart was measured by an observer too
A camera profile is fitted so that the camera's numbers reproduce the chart's measured tristimulus values. Those values were computed through the 1931 observer, so the fit inherits every departure in this round — and the fit's own residual, at 0.19 ΔE₀₀ on the chart, is fifteen times smaller than the term it cannot see.
What the brain doesThe census under another observer
This collection's largest computed result is an adaptation census — fourteen changes of light judged over a hundred and twenty-five constructed surfaces. Every number in it was computed through one observer, and the observer's own departures are between one and two and a half units on the same surfaces, which is the size of the effects the census reports.
What it takes to deliver itThe booth and the eye disagree
A viewing booth is specified to simulate daylight, and daylight is the light under which observers disagree least. So a booth is the condition in which a specification is least likely to be tested against the thing that breaks it, and the shop it will be judged in roughly doubles the term.
What it takes to deliver itA brand colour for a population
A brand colour is chosen once, specified in a number, and seen by everybody. The observer audit says two candidate colours with identical specifications can carry observer spreads differing by an order of magnitude, and that the spread is computable from an ink's spectrum at the moment the ink is chosen.
What the brain doesThe appearance model takes XYZ
CIECAM16 predicts how a colour looks, and its input is three tristimulus values computed through a standard observer. Everything this round measures happens before the model is called, so an appearance prediction inherits six observer departures and a choice of cone space before it begins.
What the eye doesTwo observers and one metamer
An observer departure is invisible on a single sample compared with nothing. It becomes a disagreement the moment two spectra are being asked to match, because a match is an identity between three integrals and a different observer takes different integrals. Everything in this round is a statement about pairs wearing a single sample's clothes.
Where the model breaksThe conditions are the result
The round measured about twenty departures and established ten conditions. The departures are numbers that depend on a sample, a light and a construction; the conditions are exact, they hold under every substitution tried, and they are what a reader can act on. A size is a measurement and a condition is a mechanism.
What a camera doesA sensor has no lens
A camera is a fourth observer and it is the only one with none of the six arguments this round measured. It does not age, it has no macular pigment, its response does not broaden with density and its peaks do not vary — so it is perfectly reproducible and is not any of the observers it is fitted to reproduce.
Matching and measuringA deviation is not a difference
The previous round priced twenty departures in colour differences and treated each number as a property of the thing that departed. Every one of them is a product of two factors — how far the reading moved, which is linear and belongs to the departure, and what a unit of that movement is worth where it landed, which is not linear and belongs to the colour. Dimming one surface sixteen times scales the first by exactly sixteen and the second by eight.
Matching and measuringA size is not a direction
An audit that reports magnitudes cannot say what two of them cost together. Over two and a half thousand pairs of observer departures the angle between them in the local metric runs from one degree to a hundred and seventy-nine, and on forty-three per cent of them the two together cost less than the larger of the two alone. Adding the angle predicts the composition to one and a quarter per cent; Pythagoras is out by twenty-eight.
What the eye doesThe rods' route is priced by the lamp
A rod signal in a dim room disturbs a colour match, and how much depends on which of the cone pathways it reaches — a weight the physiology leaves uncertain, especially for the blue–yellow pathway. Under daylight the uncertainty is nearly free: a rod signal that skips the S pathway costs 0.90 at the median surface against 1.03 for one that enters all three. Under a phosphor white LED it is worth a factor of 2.75, 0.45 against 1.24. What decides it is one number per lamp: how large the rod signal is compared with each cone class's own catch of the light.
What the eye doesThe reference lamp must not move
To measure an uncertain weight, use the condition in which the answer depends on it most. That is right about half of an asymmetric colour match and exactly wrong about the other half: a match measures a difference of two displacements, and a reference field that also moves with the weight cancels the signal the test field carries. Daylight is the least sensitive of five lamps and belongs in every one of the three best pairs — 75 settings against a phosphor LED, 2,804 against the pair of lamps the principle as stated would have chosen.
What the eye doesA rod signal has no natural size
An older lens absorbs where the S cones are sensitive, so it should make the uncertain rod-to-S-cone weight cheaper. Measured, the rod signal's catch of a phosphor LED as a share of the S cones' own catch more than doubles from twenty to seventy-five — and the share the model actually uses falls by a fifth. The two differ by the S cone's peak absorptance, which the lens takes 60 per cent of, and which entered the model as a normalisation rather than as a claim.
What the eye doesOne field keeps what two rooms divide out
An asymmetric match can measure how strongly the rods feed the blue-yellow pathway, but set with the observer adapted to each lamp in turn it needs seventy-five settings on the best pair of lamps and hours of waiting between them. Putting the two lamps on the two halves of one field was proposed as the quick version, at the cost of a weaker signal. The signal is not weaker. Under one shared adaptation it is three times stronger for daylight against a white LED, and the best pair needs six settings. The adaptation that makes the slow version slow is also what was dividing the rods' contribution out of each half.
What the eye doesAge can size the rod signal, if the lens is known
A rod signal leaking into the colour pathways has no natural size in the model: read as a fraction of each cone's own peak it shrinks as the lens yellows, read as a fixed amount it grows relative to the cones, and the two readings differ by a factor of two over a lifetime. An asymmetric match on observers of different ages can tell them apart, because they predict opposite trends: one says a weight fitted at seventy-five will look sixty per cent larger than at thirty-two, the other says it will not move. A handful of observers per age would show it. But a lens mistaken by ten years looks like forty per cent of the weight, and a tenth of an optical density of macular pigment as much again, so the experiment is only as good as what it knows of each eye's lens and macula.
What the eye doesThe matches carry their own lens
A lens mistaken by ten years moves a colour match as far as half the rod signal being measured, and a tenth of an optical density of macular pigment as far again, so an experiment on the rod signal looked as if it needed a densitometer for every observer. It does not. Across a family of surfaces the three move the matches in different patterns, and one session of forty-two settings fits all three together — the lens to within a year and a quarter, better than a densitometer was asked for. The price is the weight's precision, and a second pair of lamps nearly removes it.
What the eye doesA lens of the wrong shape lands in the macula
One session of colour matches can fit an observer's rod signal, lens and macular pigment together — but it fits a lens of the model's shape, one exponential in wavelength scaled by age, and a real lens need not be that shape. Give a sixty-year-old a lens with the right density at 400 nm and its edge ten nanometres off, and the fit puts the error mostly in the macula, moves the rod signal's weight by six tenths of its standard error — six times the predicted tenth — and leaves a misfit the session cannot see. A second lamp pair makes it worse: 3.5 standard errors. Fitting the edge as a fourth number removes the bias, costs the weight three to fourteen per cent, and finds the edge.
What the eye doesA band in the lens reads as age or as macula
A lens whose absorption edge is steeper or shallower than the model's biases a matching session's fit, and fitting the edge's position repairs it. An ageing lens also grows bands: yellow pigments that add a shoulder of absorption just past 400 nanometres. The edge parameter takes none of one. A tenth of an optical density centred at 410 to 430 nm is read as four to six years of extra lens age; centred at 440 to 460, as three to ten hundredths of macular pigment. Either way the rod signal's fitted weight moves, by up to 1.4 of its standard errors in one session and 1.8 in two, and the session's misfit stays within its noise. The lens model has to carry the band, or the experiment has to state what it does not know.
What the eye doesA dimmer session hides a lens band in the rods
A band of extra absorption in an older lens is read by a colour-matching session as lens age or as macular pigment, and it pulls the fitted rod weight with it. The rods see the lens and not the macula, so a dimmer session, where they carry a third of the signal instead of a tenth, was predicted to tell the band from the macula. It does the opposite. With the band at 450 nm left out of the fit, the rod weight's shift grows from 1.7 of its standard errors to 2.5, the misfit a session could notice shrinks by a third, and the macula and the band trade more tightly. The rods see the band — and the rod weight, which the fit is free to move, is exactly what absorbs it. What separates the band from the macula is fitting its amplitude as a fourth number, which works in daylight already.
What the eye doesA second lamp pair finds a lens band's centre
A band of extra absorption in an older lens is found by a colour-matching fit only if the fit has a parameter for it, and a band parameter at a fixed wavelength finds only a band near that wavelength. Freeing the band's centre as a fifth number asks whether the matches can place it. From one daylight-against-LED session they place a band above 430 nm to within six nanometres and one below it only to eight to twelve, where moving the band and ageing the lens change the matches together — and there they barely see the band at all. A second session, the LED against a three-emitter lamp, places every centre within five and a half nanometres. The fluorescent tube's line at 436 nm helps where it sits and nowhere else.
What the eye doesA lost lens band goes to age or the macula
Two colour-matching sessions determine the centre of a band of extra absorption in an older lens to about five nanometres, if a fit can find it. Fitted in full from eight starts across 400 to 470 nm on twenty simulated experiments, two sessions find a band at 415, 430 or 445 nm from every start in fifteen to eighteen experiments of twenty, against eighteen for a fit started at the truth. The prediction was that a low band would be lost from high starts to the macula's flank. The start barely matters with two sessions, and a lost band does go somewhere — but a band at 415 or 430 goes to lens age, three to five years of it, and only a band at 445 goes to the macula. Every loss is a worse fit than the session's best, so eight starts find the band as often as the truth does. With one session the start decides.
What the eye doesA macula three nanometres short is a lens band
Two colour-matching sessions can fit a band of extra absorption in an older lens, its size and its centre, and the test proposed for real older observers was to count those with a band more than twice its standard error. That test assumes a significant band can only be a band. The observer model's macula peaks at 460 nm; a real one is two carotenoids whose mix moves its peak by a few nanometres. Simulated with its macula peaking three nanometres short and no band at all, an observer at sixty is fitted with a lens band of 0.06 at 438 nm, three standard errors, and noisy sessions find it in nineteen of twenty experiments. Six nanometres short, the phantom is larger than the band the earlier essays searched for. The confusion runs both ways: a real band fitted with the macula's peak free reads as a macula two to three nanometres short. Neither fit alone can tell them apart. Comparing the two can, with two sessions — never preferring the macula for a real band, and preferring it in sixteen to nineteen experiments of twenty for a short macula.
What the eye doesA second session keeps a band and the macula apart
A lens band and a macula peaking a few nanometres short look alike to a colour-matching fit that has only one of them, and an older eye may have both. Fitted with all six numbers — rod weight, lens age, macular density, the band's amplitude and centre, and the macula's peak — nine simulated observers at sixty, each with a band at 415, 430 or 445 nm and a macula moved three nanometres either way or not at all, test whether the matches can carry both. The prediction was that the band at 445 and a short macula would trade almost completely, a correlation beyond 0.95 and the band's standard error tripled. That is what one session does: correlations of 0.91 to 0.95 at 430 and 445 nm, and a band found in at most twelve experiments of twenty. Two sessions do not. Their correlations stay between 0.42 and 0.83, the band is found in twelve to twenty experiments for every observer, and a moved macula in twelve to nineteen — while an unmoved one is found moved in at most three. The price of the extra number is paid by the band nearest the macula, whose standard error rises by three quarters; the rod signal pays almost nothing.
What the eye doesA line on the macula's flank buys less than a repeated session
Fitted with six numbers, two sessions of colour matches keep a lens band and a moved macula apart, but the band at 445 nm pays for it: correlated with the macula's shift at 0.82, its standard error 1.8 times its value when the macula is not fitted. A moved macula changes its long flank past 470 nm, where no lens band reaches, so a third session — the LED against a lamp with a narrow line at 487 nm — was predicted to bring the correlation under 0.6 and the band's error within a quarter of its band-only value. The correlation falls to 0.80 and the error to 1.5 times. A third session that simply repeats the second does better on both errors. The flank line pins how much macular pigment there is, not where it peaks, and it ties the band's height to its centre. Moved to 465 nm, onto the macula's peak, the same session brings the band within about a fifth of its band-only error — but no position of the line brings the correlation below 0.78. The band at 445 nm and the macula's peak are told apart by their short flanks, and a third session adds matches rather than a new kind of evidence.
What the eye doesKnowing the macula's density frees two sessions, not the line on its peak
Fitted with six numbers, an older observer's colour matches cannot fully split a lens band at 445 nm from a macula whose peak has moved: their correlation stays above 0.78 under every third session tried. The proposal was to measure the macular pigment's density from outside the matches, leaving five numbers, and the prediction was that a line on the macula's peak would then split the pair below 0.6 while two plain sessions stayed near 0.8. It runs the other way. With the density known exactly, two sessions fall from 0.83 to 0.62 and the line at 465 nm only from 0.86 to 0.74. The density was the road the band and the peak traded along — correlated with each at about −0.75 in two sessions' fit — and the designs that had already narrowed that road gain least from closing it. A realistic outside measurement closes almost none of it: the matches already know the density to 0.027, so a flicker measurement good to 0.05 moves the correlation by three hundredths. And far from the macula, at 415 nm, a known density binds the band to the peak more tightly than before.
What the eye doesA density a tenth wrong costs the band more than fitting it
An older observer's colour matches carry a lens band and a macula that can trade against each other, and fixing the macular pigment's density from an outside measurement breaks much of that trade when the density is right. A flicker measurement and a colour match average the pigment over different fields, so the fixed density can be wrong by a tenth or more, and the prediction was that a tenth too high takes about a third of a standard error off a band at 445 nm and moves the macula's peak by under half a nanometre. It takes 1.4 standard errors off the band and moves the peak 1.25 nm short. At 415 nm the same error pushes the band the other way, up by 2.4 standard errors, and runs its fitted centre 5.6 nm shorter and the lens's age three years younger. Bias and error together, a density fixed a tenth wrong gives the band at 445 nm a larger error than leaving the density free; the break-even is about eight per cent. Given as a measurement with its own standard error of 0.03 instead of fixed, the same wrong density biases the band by under half its error.
What the eye doesA wrong density shifts every experiment alike near the macula
Read from the expected matches, a macular density fixed a tenth too high lowers an older observer's lens band at 445 nm by 1.4 of its standard errors and raises a band at 415 nm by 2.4. Real experiments carry noise, and the prediction was that their fits scatter about those biases with the fixed fit's own error, so that a tenth's mistake puts the band beyond twice its error in about a third of experiments at 445 nm and two thirds at 415. Twenty simulated experiments per case, each fitted with the density free and held at 0.9, 1 and 1.1 of its truth, give five of twenty at 445 nm and sixteen at 415 under two sessions — eight and eighteen with a line on the macula's peak. Near the macula the bias is a rigid shift: every experiment moves by the first-order amount to within a tenth of a standard error. Far from it the bias is lopsided — up by 0.058 for a density too high, down by 0.032 for one too low — and a density too low erases the band altogether in one experiment of twenty.
What the eye doesOne session has a second valley
Every essay on older observers since the second session has read its fitted lens bands and macula shifts from one census: nine simulated observers, three designs, twenty noisy experiments each, every fit a damped descent from two starts. Two of forty experiments refitted in the last essay found a better fit than the census had. The prediction was that the census misses one fit in twenty, almost all where the band is small, and that the misses change no count it reported by more than a few hundredths. Refitted from three more starts, 66 of its 540 experiments have a better fit — 45 of 180 under one session, 9 and 12 under two and three. Sixty of the 66 better fits move the macula's peak more than two nanometres further short, most shrinking the band, and 31 lie lower by under one unit of χ²: a second valley, nearly level with the first. Two sessions' counts stand to within one or two experiments. One session's do not: with the best fits an unmoved macula is reported moved in eight experiments of twenty, where the census said one.
What the eye doesA bound on the macula trades false moves for hidden ones
Fitted thoroughly, one session of an older observer's colour matches finds a second valley in a quarter of its experiments — the macula's peak moved ten or more nanometres from the model's, where no real macula sits — and reports a moved macula where there is none in up to eight experiments of twenty. The prediction was that holding the macula's shift within six nanometres either way, the range real pigment mixtures span, restores every observer's one-session counts to within two of the census's and leaves about one fit in four pressed against the bound. The false moves vanish: an unmoved macula is reported moved in one, two and one experiments of twenty for the three bands, against eight, six and two unbounded. Seven of nine observers keep their count of moved maculas within two of the census's. But only one fit in six ends on the bound, and beside the band at 445 nm the bound hides real moves: a macula truly three nanometres short is found in three experiments of twenty, where the census found seven. Two sessions barely notice the bound.
What the eye doesA soft prior on the macula frees the lens band
One session of an older observer's colour matches, fitted thoroughly, can drift into a valley where the macula's peak sits ten or more nanometres from any real eye's, and a hard bound at ±6 nm removes those false moves at the cost of hiding some real ones — beside a lens band at 445 nm, a macula truly three nanometres short is found in three experiments of twenty where the census found seven. The prediction was that a Gaussian prior four nanometres wide, which lets a fit go further when the matches insist, keeps the false moves away and restores those real ones. It keeps the false moves away — none, one and one for the three bands. It does not restore the real moves: it finds them as seldom as the bound or more seldom, two of twenty beside 445 nm, because it pulls every fitted shift towards nought, to a mean of 1.2 to 1.9 nanometres for moves of three. What it buys instead is the lens band. With the macula held near the standard, the band beside it is found in ten to twelve experiments of twenty, where the census found three to seven.
What the eye doesA wider prior gives the moves back by spending the band
One session of an older observer's colour matches, fitted under a Gaussian prior four nanometres wide on the macula's peak shift, finds the lens band beside the macula in ten to twelve experiments of twenty and real three-nanometre moves of the macula as seldom as a hard bound does. The prediction was that a prior six nanometres wide keeps the false moves at two or fewer, finds the real moves within two of the bound's counts and keeps two thirds of the band's gain, and that at eight the far valley reopens at 415 nm. Three parts hold. The fourth fails: six nanometres keeps 55 per cent of the band's gain. Read across the widths the prior traces one trade — 14 real moves and 44 bands at four nanometres, 22 and 34 at six, 25 and 25 at eight, against the unconstrained fit's 27 and 22 — and the hard bound, at 19 and 20, is worse than six nanometres on both.
What the eye doesA second session leaves the prior one job
Under one session of an older observer's colour matches, a prior on the macular pigment's peak shift trades the lens band against real moves of the macula, six nanometres wide at the knee of the trade. Two sessions already find the band in twelve to twenty experiments of twenty and real three-nanometre moves in twelve to eighteen, and still report an unmoved macula moved in two to three. The prediction was that the six-nanometre prior, applied to two sessions, removes those false moves and costs nothing else. It removes none of them — two, two and none remain, about the rate at which a test at twice the standard error calls a move by chance. It costs nothing at five observers of six. Beside 415 nm, with the macula moved short, it finds four fewer moves: three of the best fits there were in the far valley, eight to twelve nanometres short, and counted as moves because their sign was right. With two sessions the far valley is the prior's only remaining job.
What the eye doesA third session finds the edge band and counts bands misplaced
Two sessions of colour matches find an older observer's lens band in eighteen to twenty experiments of twenty at every place but one: a band at 415 nm, beside the lens's own short-wave edge, found in twelve. The prediction was that a third session — a phosphor LED set against a lamp with a cyan line — finds it in at least seventeen, and that the experiments losing it under two sessions fit the lens three or more years old. Three sessions find it in eighteen, and every loss under two did fit the lens older, but by under three years in five of eight. The count hid something else. It credits a band wherever a fit puts it, and up to twelve of 180 fits put it sixty to eighty nanometres from its place, on the macula's long flank. With three sessions the six-nanometre prior no longer closes that valley.
What the eye doesA band held near the lens closes the valley the prior could not
Three sessions of colour matches find an older observer's lens band beside the lens's own edge as predicted, but twelve of 180 fits place the band sixty to eighty nanometres away on the macula's long flank, each with the macula fitted far short — a valley the six-nanometre prior on the macula's shift no longer closes. The prediction was that holding the band's centre to 400–460 nm, where a lens band can be, empties that valley, finds the 415 nm band with the macula short in at least eighteen experiments, and raises the moves found beside 430 nm from nine to twelve. The first two hold: no fit is left in the valley, and the band is found in nineteen. The third does not: 430 nm stays at ten. And the valley turns out to have been nearly level with the truth — holding the band costs ten of the twelve fits under four units of the fit's chi-squared, and every one's macula comes home.