Errata sheets
The following is a list of errors in the various printings of Foundations of Vision . The errors are grouped by the several printings. Thus, if you have a 2nd printing, you don't need to bother with the previous errors. In additon to the errors listed, minor typographical or bibliographical errors were also fixed. These are not included here.
Postive line numbers refer to a line count starting at the top. Negative line numbers refer to a line count starting from the bottom. The notation A -> B means replace A with B. The mathematical notation is in basic LaTeX style.
Caught in 1st printing, fixed in 2nd
ENDPAPERS
- (L+M):S-cone ratio: 14:1
- Visual monocular field 160 deg 135 deg, 200 deg w 135 deg
- anomalous trichromacy 6 x 10^-2 (male), 4 x 10^-3 (female) protanopia and deuteranopia 10^-2 (male), 3 x 10^-4 (female); tritanopia 10^-4; rod monochromacy, 10^-4; cone monochromacy 10^-5;
MAIN TEXT
- p. 14: Fig 2.1 and p. 19 Fig 2.6 Light rays should start bending at the cornea, not the lens.
- p. 28, Equation 2.10 N above the 0 should be the number 1.
- p. 47 middle. "optic-tract" -> optic nerve fibers.
- p. 49: Fig 3.5 angle should originate at back of lens, closer to the proper nodal point, not at the front of the lens.
- p. 51 No scale on Fig 3.6. Should be minutes of visual angle.
- p. 54 3 line from bottom. "of the wavefront: delete the phrase.
- p. 58 Fig 3.12. The drawing doesn't match the original scan perfectly. Specifically, there are white holes on the lower right that fall on top of black lines. These arose because the original quality of the scan was poor and the artist touched up the image. There must be no white holes over black bars.
- p. 87 Fig 4.14 in text is cited as CIE 1931 x bar ... but figure legend has x10 bar. Fix the legend by deleting the subscripted 10 from all of three of the graphs.
- p. 98 Two sentences beginning: "The color difference on each plate is ..." Replace with:
- Observers with red-green color deficiencies have
- difficulty perceiving the test pattern based. Because this test is
- easy to administer, it is commonly used as a quick screening tool to
- discriminate normals from protanopes and deuteranopes.
- p. 99, top, Description of F-M 100 Hue scoring should be
- The error score is equal to the sum of the absolute differences
- between the number on the cap and its neighbors. For example, in the
- correct series 1-2-3-4-5-6 the error score for caps 2 through 5 is 2,
- the smallest error score. With a single misodering, say 1-3-2-4-5-6,
- the error scores for caps 2 through 4 are 3, and the error score for
- 5 remains 2.
- p. 115, Fig 5.4 Number of rods per bipolar in figure caption is wrong. Waessle says it should be twenty, not 1000. Citation is wrong and should be a "W\"assle and Boycott (1991)"
- p. 133 Equation should read: delta r = bold R bold a
- p. 157 layers. Fig 6.3 needs to change. Layers 1,4 and 6 receive from the contralateral eye, not the ipsilateral,and conversely.
- p. 164 Remove the sentence "When she suffered a stroke ..." Fill space by continuing last sentence, "blind throughout most of the visual field, and completely blind in the central fifteen degrees."
- pp. 179-180: The description in the text of the 4 panels in Fig 6.19 is not correct. e.g. "the two left panels" actually refers to panels A and B which are left and right -- similar problem when referring to "the two right panels". These should read Panels (A) and (B) and panels (C) and (D) in the text. The caption is fine.
- p. 182 line -3 medial->middle
- p. 185 l. 19 strips -> stripes
- p. 211: 2nd full paragraph: change "dot-dashed" to "shaded."
- p. 218 Open circles and open triangles are reversed in legend.
- p. 220 Fig 7.15B diagram legends wrong. 1.7 in the legend too many times. Proper numbers are 1.0, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.4, 2.8, 4.0
- p 224 par 2. "The dot-dashed line shows" -> The open squares show
- p. 224 par. 3 "why should adapting to 3-cpd and 9-cpd stimuli improve sensitivty at 3 cpd?" -> should read "improve sensitivity at 9 cpd"
- p. 232 para beginning with "Second, space-time". The calculation in the last parenthesis (Ns x Nt = 120) should be (Ns + Nt = 120).
- p. 233 fig 7.23A vertical axis should have contrast sensitivity, not contrast.
- p. 249, middle of page. "The image representation within a single color band requires" -> "To represent the three bands in a color image requires"
- p. 270 note 9. "Two vector are" -> "Two vectors {bold a} and {bold b} are"
- p. 302 l. 14 remove "human skin", or put "caucasian skin."
- p. 312 Fig 9.10C. There are 11 filled data points and 10 open points even though they are from the same data set. The point at (0.22,0.16) in panel C was added by a drawing error I made.
- p. 314, bottom paragraph. Text describes top and bottom panels of Fig 9.12, in fact they are right-left.
- p. 317 Fig 9.13C Numbering around circle isn't quite correct. Missing 10PB and two 10RPs.
- p. 333 Fig 9.21 needs a legend to disambiguate the background light conditions. It should be in a box with a header "Background light wavelength" The shaded line are measurements on the 650 nm background and the dark lines are measurements on the 510 nm background. The horizontal axes could be renamed "Test wavelength (nm)"
- p. 349 Fig 10.5 panel (C) the dark line on the right must be moved to the edge of the shaded region, not inside it.
- p. 350 l -7. delete "fail to"
- p. 356 l -7. "We can deduce ..." -> "According to Equation 10.4, the local image velocity, v_x, can be interpolated by finding the minimum response in the array of neurons. "
- p. 357 Fig 10.9. Reverse line drawing at bottom of (B) showing the timecourse
- p. 357 Fig 10.9 caption. Add to end of caption: "In this example, the solution is approximately v_x = -0.6.
- p. 377 Fig 10.19. Arrow is backward from V1 to V2, should go V1 -> V2
- p. 389 Sacks (1991) reference dates are wrong. Also, in Reference, the Sacks reference is May 10, 1993, not 1992. It needs to be corrected both in the text and in the reference section.
- p. 394 Fig 11.4. Reproduction is very bad.
- p. 400. Figure 11.10, part C. The illusion is not printed correctly. The center dot is not in fact equidistant from the end ones -- not even close. See Goldstein, 3rd edition, page 261 for a correct rendering.
Caught in 2nd printing, fixed in 3rd
UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
Caught in 3rd, not yet fixed
ENDPAPERS
- The retina is a disk about 4.1 cm in diameter, rather than a square 5cm across. (Polyak, 1941; Kolb 1991)
