- For useful histories of the development of the science of optics, especially in relation to the psychology of visual sensations, see Boring E. A history of experimental psychology New York 1929 passim; and Sensation and perception (1942, New York), 116–299. See also Sir Stewart Duke-Elder, The physiology of the eye and of vision (15 vols., 1958–1976, St. Louis), vol. 4, 435–446, for a brief account of the development of physiological optics.
- See Marek J. Johannes Kepler and the development of physical optics’, and H. M. Koelbing, ‘Kepler und die physiologische Optik, sein Beitrag und seine Wirkung International Kepler-Symposium 1971 Krafft F. Meyer K. Sticker B. Gerstenberg Hildesheim 1973 215 245 in
- Duke-Elder . 1929 . A history of experimental psychology 439 – 439 . New York
- Boring , E. 1929 . A history of experimental psychology 290 – 293 . New York
- von Helmholtz , H. 1863–64 . On the normal motions of the human eye in relation to binocular vision . Proc. Royal Soc. London (B) , : 186 – 199 .
- Joseph LeConte to John Lawrence LeConte LeConte Family Papers American Philosophical Society Philadelphia 1881 April 23
- LeConte , Joseph . 1903 . Autobiography New York passim
- LeConte . 1903 . Autobiography 240 – 241 . New York 244–246, 270
- Claparède , É. 1858 . Quelques mots sur la vision binoculaire et stéréoscopique et sur la question de l'horopter . Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles, n.s. , 3 : 138 – 168 . Joseph Towne, ‘The stereoscope and stereoscopic results’ and ‘Contributions to the physiology of binocular vision’, Guy's hospital reports, 10 (1864), 124–141; 11 (1865), 144–180; 12 (1866), 285–301; 14 (1869), 54–84; and 15 (1870), 180–212.
- LeConte . 1903 . Autobiography 240 – 246 . New York In a letter to William James, dated 22 March 1871, LeConte stated that ‘all my investigations for publication [on vision] have in each case been started by reading something by others which I was sure was all wrong’ (Houghton Library Manuscripts, Harvard University). R. Pictet, ‘Mémoire sur la vision binoculaire’, Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles, n.s., 40 (1871), 105–152.
- March 1881 . Nation March , 190 – 191 . 17 The review is unsigned, but Ralph Barton Perry attributes it to James in his Annotated bibliography of the writings of William James (1920, New York), 12. LeConte depended upon the French edition of Helmholtz's work (Optique physiologique), which was published in 1867. It contained some corrections and additions to the original edition, for which reason LeConte claimed it was better; however, he probably found it more useful because he could read French well but not German.
- LeConte to James Houghton Library Manuscripts Harvard University 1881 March 22 Later, when he published his monumental Principles of psychology (1890, New York), James acknowledged an indebtedness to LeConte's Sight; see pp. 228, 265 and 282. According to Boring, A history (footnote 1), 616, ‘the most important book’ on the psychology of sensations around 1890 was George T. Ladd's Elements of physiological psychology (1887, New York). Ladd relied heavily upon LeConte's Sight in several instances (see pp. 431–432, 435–439, 442).
- 1881 . American journal of science , 21 ( 3 ) : 405 – 405 .
- 1881 . Popular science monthly , 19 : 272 – 272 . Mind, 6 (1881), 439.
- 1883 . Die Lehre vom Sehen Leipzig foreword
- March 1883 . Literarisches Zentralblatt March , 443 – 443 . 24 Interestingly, J. Hirschberg, in his extensive Geschichte der Augenheilkunde (9 vols., 1915, Leipzig), vol. 3, 192, praised LeConte's Die Lehre vom Sehen, and said that ‘I find it very notworthy that his book was so little mentioned in the American literature’.
- Unknown to LeConte was the fact that Christopher Scheiner had first observed these ‘three synkinetic reactions’ in 1619 (see Duke-Elder A history of experimental psychology New York 1929 12 673 673
- 1869 . On some phenomena of binocular vision: adjustments of the eye . American journal of science , 47 ( 2 ) : 68 – 77 . All of LeConte's papers in this series were entitled ‘On some phenomena of binocular vision’, but all except one bear a subtitle; hereafter only the topical title is given. On the subject of accommodation, see M. Alpern's chapter in H. Davson (ed.), The eye (2nd ed., 1969, New York), vol. 3, 217–254.
- Duke-Elder . 1929 . A history of experimental psychology Vol. 12 , 673 – 673 . New York
- LeConte . 1903 . Autobiography 270 – 270 . New York
- 1869 . Rotation of the eye on the optic axis . American journal of science , 47 ( 2 ) : 153 – 168 . ‘Laws of ocular motion’, ibid., (3) 20 (1880), 83–93.
- See Boring A history of experimental psychology New York 1929 231 232 For a clear technical discussion of the kinematics of the eye, see Alpern's chapter on the subject in Davson (footnote 18), 13–25.
- Boring . Sensation 228 – 229 . and A history (footnote 1), 103. Müller further modified the concept in 1838.
- Duke-Elder . 1929 . A history of experimental psychology Vol. 4 , 680 – 682 . New York
- 1869 . The horopter . American journal of science , 47 ( 2 ) : 153 – 178 . Regarding his differences with Helmholtz, LeConte reported (in his Autobiography (footnote 7), 307) that Émile Javal, professor of opthalmology at the Sorbonne and translator of Helmholtz's Optique physiologique, considered LeConte to be ‘right in every case’ wherein he ‘differ[ed] fundamentally’ with Helmholtz. Although Javal may simply have felt it discourteous to criticize the elderly scientist who was a guest in Javal's home, it must be noted that Javal claimed that he used LeConte's Sight in teaching physiological optics to his own students. For a technical treatment of the horopter, see K. Ogle's chapter in H. Davson (footnote 18). vol. 4, 325–348.
- Alexandre Pierre Prévost . 1859 . Note sur la vision binoculaire . Archices des sciences physiques et naturelles, n.s. , 4 : 105 – 111 . Ernst Brücke, ‘Ueber die Stereoskopis-Chenerscheinungen und Wheatstone's Angriff auf die Lehre von den identischen Stellen der Netzhäute’, Archiv für Anatomie und Physiologie (1841), 459–476. LeConte, Autobiography (footnote 7), 159–160. Several years after he had published a paper on the subject, LeConte found the idea of fusion still in use. He again (briefly) showed it to be erroneous and then said: ‘Wheatstone's theory … seems true only to the unobservant or unpracticed: It is a popular explanation, not a scientific theory; it cuts, but does not loosen the Gordian knot’ (‘On binocular vision’, Philosophical magazine, (5) 5 (1878), 227–228). LeConte's discussion of the theories of binocular perspective in his Sight is given on pp. 145–155 (1st ed.) and 168–175 (2nd ed.).
- 1871 . So-called “images of illusion” and the theory of binocular relief . American journal of science. , 2 ( 3 ) : 315 – 323 . H. Dove, ‘Ueber Stereoskopie’, Annalen der Physik, (2) 10 (1860), 494–498.
- 1871 . On some phenomena of binocular vision . American journal of science , 2 ( 3 ) : 417 – 426 . (this is a continuation of the foregoing article); ‘Transparence des images doubles’, Archives des sciences, 45 (1872), 229–232; ‘The mode of representing the position of double images’, American journal of science, (3) 1 (1871), 33–44; and ‘Stereoscopic phenomena’, ibid., (3), 2 (1871), 1–10.
- 1871 . American journal of science , 1 ( 3 ) : 33 – 44 . As late as 1935, F. H. Verhoeff, in dealing with the subject of corresponding images, called ‘fusion’ an incorrect term; see his ‘A new theory of binocular vision’, Archives of ophthalmology, 13 (1935), 175. See Duke-Elder (footnote 1), vol. 4, 684–685, and 692–694. On the subject of perception LeConte's language and ideas show a marked similarity to those of Bishop Berkeley in his A new theory of vision (1910, London; originally published in 1709); see pp. 67–69, for example.
- LeConte . 1878 . On binocular vision . Philosophical magazine , 5 ( 5 ) : 227 – 229 . Thompson, ‘On the chromatic aberration of the eye in relation to the perception of distance’, ibid., (5) 4 (1877), 48–50, 55.
- Pictet , R. 1934–35 . Eighty years of astronomy at the University of Michigan . Michigan alumnus quarterly review , 41 LeConte (footnote 27). LeConte had also written to Tyndall, the eminent English scientist, on the same subject, and Tyndall sent the letter to the Philosophical magazine, which published it as ‘On an optical illusion’, (4) 41 (1871), 266–269; this letter was written in direct response to an article by J. L. Tupper in ibid., 187; F. H. Verhoeff later showed that LeConte was essentially correct, but he also indicated that LeConte's explanation was incomplete. In addition, Verhoeff traced the idea of ‘shadow images’ to Priestly and LeCat. See his ‘Shadow images on the retina’, Psychological review, 7 (1900), 18–28.
- Dor , Henri . 1872 . Sur la vision binoculaire . Archives des science physiques et naturelles , 43 : 422 – 422 . n.s. Raoul Pictet, ‘Quelques mots de réponse a M. LeConte au sujet des images d'illusion’, ibid., 60–85.
- 1871 . On an optical illusion . Philosophical magazine , 41 ( 4 ) : 266 – 269 . ‘Position of the eyes in sleepiness’, American journal of science, (3) 9 (1875), 159–164; ‘In binocular vision the law of corresponding points may be opposed to the law of direction’, ibid., 164–168; ‘Comparative physiology of binocular vision’, ibid., 168–171; ‘The structure of the crystalline lens and its relation to periscopism’, ibid., (3) 14 (1877), 191–195; ‘Some peculiarities of the phantom images formed by binocular combination of regular figures’, ibid., (3) 34 (1887), 97–107; ‘Note on the binocular phenomenon observed by Professor Nipher’, ibid., (3) 15 (1877), 252–253; ‘A singular optical phenomenon’, Science, 3 (1884), 404; ‘Double vision’, Science, 7 (1886), 506; ‘Star rays’, Science, 9 (1887), 14; and ‘On a curious visual phenomenon’, American journal of psychology, 3 (1890), 364–366.
- LeConte and Hyslop had previously disagreed on the subject of the dominance of monocular over binocular vision in certain experiments dealing with stereoscopic combination. See Science 1888 11 71 73 (10 February); 119 (9 March); 217–218 (4 May); and 252 (June).
- 1895 . Erect vision and single vision . Science , 2 : 629 – 630 . n.s. (8 November); ‘Inverted image once more’, ibid., (15 November), with a reply by Cattell, 667–668; ‘A last word on erect vision’, ibid., 850–851 (20 December); and C. S. Minot, ‘The inverted image on the retina’, ibid., 692–693 (22 November). LeConte expanded his discussion of ‘erect vision’ in the second edition of Sight (pp. 69–76), but he ignored the controversy which had arisen. His views on erect vision and perception of distance bear comparison with Bishop Berkeley's treatment of the subject; see Berkeley, A new theory of vision (footnote 29), passim.
- Last word on erect vision 851 – 851 .
- Hyslop , J.H. 1879 . Upright vision . Psychological review , 4 : 153 – 163 . Hyslop erroneously gave the title of LeConte's book as Vision.
- 1898 . Popular science monthly , 52 : 423 – 423 . Archives of ophthalmology, 26 (1897), 490–491.
- Scripture , E.W. 1897 . Psychological review , 4 : 543 – 545 . review of second edition of Sight The study of the physiology of sensations reached a high point in the 1890s. The Psychological review, for example, was replete with studies, including many articles on visual sensations.
- Scripture , E.W. 1897 . Psychological review , 4 : 543 – 545 . review of second edition of Sight The study of the physiology of sensations reached a high point in the 1890s. The Psychological review, for example, was replete with such studies, including many articles on visual sensations.
- Scripture , E.W. 1897 . Psychological review , 4 : 543 – 545 . review of second edition of Sight The study of the physiology of sensations reached a high point in the 1890s. The Psychological review, for example, was replete with such studies, including many articles on visual sensations.
- McKeen Cattell , J. 1897 . Science , 6 September : 491 – 492 . review of second edition of Sight n.s. 24
- McKeen Cattell , J. 1897 . Science , 6 : 491 – 492 . review of second edition of Sight n.s. LeConte maintained (incorrectly) that ‘in passing down the animal scale, the central spot is quickly lost. It exists only in man and the higher monkeys’ (Sight, 2nd ed., 78). G. M. Stratton, ‘Vision without inversion of the retina’, Psychological review, 3 (1896), 611–617; 4 (1897), 341–360, 463–481.
- Cattell , J. 1897 . Science , 6 : 491 – 492 . review of second edition of Sight n.s.
- LeConte's reply is in Science 1897 6 737 739 n.s. (12 November). Although he generally maintained his stance as a scientist, LeConte felt it necessary to remind his readers that ‘the mind's eye must also be binocular or we get no true moral perspective’ (Sight, 2nd ed., 178 and 312). For LeConte, every phenomenon of physical existence was a representation of the Divine Creator's handiwork.
- LeConte's reply Science 1897 6 737 739 n.s. LeConte later aided Stratton with one of his experiments, being called upon by Stratton to confirm a point regarding visual distance (see G. M. Stratton, ‘A mirror pseudoscope and the limit of visible depth’, Psychological review, 5 (1898), 632–638; and Stratton (footnote 43)).
- 1879 . Science , 6 November : 739 – 740 . n.s. 12
- See, for example Scripture E.W. Cerebral light Science July 1897 6 138 139 n.s. 23 LeConte, ‘Cerebral light’, ibid., 257–258 (13 August); Scripture, ‘Cerebral light: further observations’, ibid., 850 (16 June); LeConte, ‘Cerebral light again’, ibid., 10 (1899), 58 (14 July); and LeConte to Cattell, May 4, 1901 (J. McKeen Cattell Papers, Library of Congress). In this letter, LeConte called Cattell's attention to a minor error in Cattell's article ‘On the relation of time and space in vision’, Psychological review, 7 (1900), 325–343.
- The reference here is to Matthew Luckiesh's Visual illusions New York 1922 On pp. 37, 40 and 41, for example, Luckiesh uses either exact illustrations and statements or slightly modified phrases from LeConte's Sight, and he neither uses quotation marks nor mentions LeConte's work at all.
- The noted psychologist James M. Baldwin cited LeConte's works on vision in both his Handbook of psychology 1 and his Dictionary of philosophy and psychology, vol. 3, pt. 2. In reviewing the edition of Helmholtz's Handbuch as revised by Arthur König in 1896, Cattell noted that König gave eighteen references to LeConte but never once cited his Sight in the annotations to the Handbuch nor attributed any original ideas directly to LeConte (Science, n.s., 8 (1889), 794–796 (2 December)). It is also interesting to note that Duke-Elder (footnote 1) uses an illustration from LeConte's Sight (vol. 4, 693) but otherwise makes no other reference to LeConte or his work.
Annals of Science
Volume 37, 1980 - Issue 3