Skip to main content
Log in

On the history of deformation phosphenes and the idea of internal light generated in the eye for the purpose of vision

  • Published:
Documenta Ophthalmologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Deformation phosphenes are light sensations evoked by deformation of the eyeball in total darkness. They were first reported in Western literature by Alcmaeon of Croton in the fifth century B.C. The phenomenon of deformation phosphenes was instrumental in prompting some pre-Socratic philosophers and Plato to conceive the idea that efferent light is emitted from the eye for the purpose of vision and a ‘cone of vision’ is formed by interaction with the external light. In the theories of vision this cone of vision played an important role as a signal-transmitting structure and was also used by the Greek opticians as a geometrical construction to explain optical properties of vision.

The impact of the deformation phosphene experiment on the ideas of visual sensation can be followed from Greek antiquity through the period of Roman dominance and Galen's medical teaching on to medieval times and up to the late Renaissance when, based on the anatomy of the eye as illustrated by Felix Platter, the image formation on the retina was correctly described for the first time by Johannes Kepler. In the generations following, deformation phosphenes were still employed as an important argument in defence of the theories of vision. However, the idea of physical light generated by eyeball deformation was rejected with increasing frequency during the 17th and 18th centuries. The literature on this topic is discussed, comprising the contributions of the Arabic philosophers and physicians of the 9th and 10th centuries A.D., the Franciscan and Dominican philosophers of the 13th century, Nicolaus Cusanus of the 15th century, several anatomists of the 16th and 17th centuries, Kepler, Plempius, Descartes, Boyle, Newton and others. After Kepler, the mechanical interpretation of the deformation phosphene being caused by direct action of the eyeball deformation onto the retina slowly became dominant, and the idea that physical light is generated in the eye disappeared.

The experimentum crucis in this matter was performed by Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682–1771) and repeated and extended by Georg August Langguth (1711–1782). On the basis of their results, the case for physical light being generated in the eye by deformation was refuted definitively and slowly vanished thereafter from scientific literature. Deformation phosphenes were used in the 19th and 20th centuries as an instructive example of the percepts evoked by inadequate stimulation of a sense organ. J.E. Pûrkyne in particular contributed to the study of deformation phosphenes, and finally in 1978, F. Tyler devoted a careful study to the differences between monocular and binocular deformation phosphenes. Finally some remarks on the neurophysiological interpretation of deformation phosphenes, based on microelectrode recordings of the activity of single retinal ganglion cells, are added to the historical report.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tyler Ch. Some new entoptic phenomena. Vision Res 1978; 18: 1633–1639.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Theophrast of Eresos. Theophrastus and the Greek physiological psychology before Aristotle. ‘De sensu’ transl. by Stratton GM, London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1917. Reprint Amsterdam: E.J. Bonset 1964; 227 p; quoted in text as DS.

  3. Diels H, Kranz W. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Vol. I. Basel: Weidmann, 1951; 504 p.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aristoteles. Über die Sinneswahrnehmung und ihre Gegenstände (‘De sensu et sensato’). In: Gohlke P, ed. and transl. Die Lehrschriften, Vol. VI/2: Kleine Schriften zur Seelenkunde, 2nd edn. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1953; 22–61.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Platon. Timaios. In: Loewenthal E, ed. Platon, Sämtliche Werke, Vol. III. Köln, Olten: Hegner, 1969; 93–191.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hirschberg J. Geschichte der Augenheilkunde. I: Geschichte der Augenheilkunde im Altertum. In: Graefe-Saemisch, Handbuch der gesammten Augenheilkunde, Vol. XII/2. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1899; 419 p.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Diogenes Laertius. Leben und Meinungen berühmter Philosophen. Transl. by Appelt O. Reich K, ed. 2nd edn. Hamburg: Meiner, 1967; 411 p.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Arnold EV. Roman Stoicism. (Reprint Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1971; 478 p.) 1911.

  9. Watson G. The Stoic theory of knowledge. Oxford: Vincent Baxter, 1966; 106 p.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Epikur. Philosophie der Freude. Mewaldt J, ed. Stuttgart: Kröner, 1973; 95 p.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Katz O. Die Augenanatomie des Galenos. Erster (theoretischer) Teil: Über Anatomie und Physiologie des Sehorgans. Medical Dissertation, University of Berlin, 1890; 126 p.

  12. Siegel RE. Galen on Sense Perception. Basel: Karger, 1970; 216 p.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hagner M. Zur Geschichte vom Licht im Auge und der Physiologie des Druckphosphens im Verhältnis zu den jeweils zeitgenössischen Sehtheorien. Medical Dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, 1987; 164 p.

  14. Lindberg DC. Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976; 304 p.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Meyerhof M, Prüfer C. Die Augenanatomie des Hunain b. Ishaq. Sudhoffs Arch Gesch Med 1910; 4: 163–90.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meyerhof M, Prüfer C. Die Lehre von Sehen bei Humain b. Ishaq. Sudhoffs Arch. Gesch. Med. 1911; 5: 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Alhazen. De Aspectibus. In: Risner F, ed. Opticae thesaurus Alhazeni arabis libri septem. 1572 Basel: Per Episcopios. Reprint with an introduction by D. Lindberg. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1972; 288 p.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bauer H. Die Psychologie Alhazens auf Grund von Alhazens Optik. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. X, Fasc. 5. Münster: Aschendorff, 1911; 72 p.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schramm M. Zur Entwicklung der physiologischen Optik in der arabischen Literatur. Sudhoffs Arch Gesch Med 1959; 43: 289–316.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Russell GA. The emergence of physiological optics. In: Morelon R, Rashed R, eds. Science in Islamic Civilisation. London: Crom Helm, 1990 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wiedemann E. Ibn Sinas Anschauung vom Sehvorgang. Arch Gesch Naturw u Technik 1913; 4: 239–241.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hirschberg J, Lippert J. Die Augenheilkunde des Avicenna. Translation from the arabic text. Leipzig: Engelmann, 1902.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Baur L. Die philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. IX. Münster: Aschendorff, 1912.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bacon R. The opus majus of Roger Bacon, Vol II. Bridges JH, ed. London (Reprint Frankfurt: Minerva, 1964) 1900.

  25. Albertus Magnus. Summae de creaturis. In: Borgnet A, ed. Opera omnia, Vol XXXV. Paris, 1890–1899.

  26. Cusanus N. Compendium (Kurze Darstellung der philosophisch-theologischen Lehre). Lateinisch-Deutsch. Hamburg: F. Meiner, 1982; 110 p.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cusanus N. Schrift vom Geist (Liber de mente). Transl. by H. Cassirer. In: Cassirer E. Individuum und Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977; 202–300.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fabricius ab Aquapendente H. ‘De actione oculorum, pars secunda’. In: Opera omnia anatomica et physiologica. Leipzig: J.F. Gleditsch, 1687; 452 p.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Koelbing H. Il Trattato ‘De visione’ di Girolamo Fabrici d'Acquapendente (Venezia 1600). Atti del XXXIII Congresso nazionale della Società Italiana de Storia della Medicina. Padua: La Garangola, 1985; 29–33.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Plater F. De corporis humani structura et usu. Basel: Froben, 1583; 197 p.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Koelbing H. Renassance der Augenheilkunde 1540–1630. Bern, Stuttgart: Huber, 1967; 198 p.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bauhin C. Deo corporis humani fabrica, Libri IV. Basel: Frobenius, 1590.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bauhin C. Theatrum anatomicum. Frankfurt a.M.: Becker, 1605; 1340 p.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Koelbing H. Kepler und die physiologische Optik. Sein Beitrag und seine Wirkung. In: Krafft F, Meyer K, Sticker B, eds. Internationales Kepler-Symposion. Weil der Stadt 1971. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1973; 229–45.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kepler J. Ad Vitelloni paralipomena, quibus astronomiae pars optica traditur. Frankfurt 1604. In: Hammer F, ed. Gesammelte Werke, Vol. II. München: Beck, 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kepler J. Dioptrice. Augsburg: Frank, 1611. In: von Dyck W, Casper M, eds. Gesammelte Werke, Vol IV, München: Beck, 1937–1964.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kepler J. Johannes Keplers Behandlung des Sehens. Trans. by Plehn F. Zeitschrift für ophthalmologische Optik mit Einschluβ der Instrumentenkunde, 1920–21; 8: 154–57; 9: 13–26, 40–54, 73–87, 103–09, 143–52, 177–82.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Scheiner C. Oculus: Hoc est: Fundamentum opticum. 1st edn. (1619); Innsbruck: Agricola, 1648.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Plempius VF. Ophthalmographia sive tractatio de oculi fabrica, actione et usu. Amsterdam: Laurentius, 1632; 340 p.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lindeboom GA. Descartes and Medicine. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1978; 134 p.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Descartes R. Dioptrique. In: Adam C, Tannery P, eds. Oeuvres de Descartes, Vol. VI. Paris, 1897–1913.

  42. Descartes R. Traité de l'homme, 1664. Germ. transl. by: Rothschuh K, ‘Über den Menschen’ (1632) sowie 'Beschreibung des menschlichen Körpers (1648). Heidelberg: Schneider, 1969; 202 p.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ferrero N. Leonardo da Vinci: of the eye. Amer J Ophthalmol 1952; 35: 507–521.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Boyle R. The experimental history of colours begun, 1st edn. In: The Works of Robert Boyle, Vol. 1. (Reprint Hildesheim: Olms 1965) London, 1664; p.668 ff.

  45. Henninius HCh. Johannis Claubergi Vita. In: Clauberg J. Opera omnia philosophica, Vol I. Amsterdam: Janson-Waesberg, 1691; 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Clauberg J. Theoria corporum viventium. In: Opera omnia philosophica, Vol I. (Reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1968) Amsterdam: Janson-Waesberg, 1664; 163–208.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Malebranche N. Entretiens sur la métaphysique et sur la religion. In: Robinet A, ed. Oeuvres de Malebranche. Vol. XIII. Paris: J. Vrin, Librairie Philosophique, 1965.

  48. Bartholinus Th. De luce hominum et brutorum, Libri III. Copenhagen: Godiccaen, 1669; 531 p.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Briggs W. Ophthalmo-graphia sive oculi eiusque partium descriptio anatomica. Cambridge: Hyes, 1676; 80 p.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Newton I. Opticks. Or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. London, 1730. Reprint New York: Dover Edition, 4th edn, 1952; 406 p.

  51. Morgagni GB. Adversaria Anatomica Omnia. Padua, 1719; 2nd edn. Leyden 1741.

  52. Langguth GA. De luce ex pressione oculi. Wittenberg: E.G. Eichsfeld, 1742; 16 p.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Morgagni GB. De sedibus et causis morborum. 2 Vol. Venice: Remondian, 1761.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Morgagni GB. Von dem Sitze und den Ursachen der Krankheiten. Vol. I: Krankheiten des Kopfes. Altenburg, 1771.

  55. Grüsser O-J, Hagner M, Przybyszewski A. The effect of dark adaptation on the responses of cat retinal ganglion cells to eyeball deformation. Vision Res 1989; 29: 1059–1068.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Boerhaave H. Kurze, doch gründliche Abhandlungen von Augenkrankheiten und derselben Cur. Transl. by Clauder GF. Nürnberg: Schwarzkopf, 1759; 310 p.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Haller A von. Anfangsgründe der Physiologie des menschlichen Körpers, Vol. V. Transl. from the Latin by J.S. Hallen. 1768; Berlin: Voss.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Autenrieth JHF. Handbuch der empirischen menschlichen Physiologie, 3 Vols. Tübingen: Heerbrandt, 1802/1803; 396 p.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Serre d'Uzèz. Essai sur les phosphènes ou anneaux lumineux de la rétine. Paris: Masson, 1853.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Grüsser O-J. Pûkyne's contribution to the physiology of the visual, vestibular and the oculomotor system. Hum Neurobiol 1984; 3: 129–144.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Purkinje JE. Beyträge zur Kenntniss des Sehens in subjectiver Hinsicht. Prag: Calve, 1819; 109 p.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Müller J. Psychologische Diplomarbeit, Physiologisches Institut, Freie Universität Berlin, 1985.

  63. Tschermak-Seyssenegg A von. Job. Ev. Pŭrkyne als ein Begründer des exakten Subjectivismus. In: In Memoriam Joh. Ev. Pŭrkyne 1787–1937. Prag, 1937; 76–96.

  64. Müller J. Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der anatomisch-physiologischen Wissenschaften im Jahre 1833. Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und Wissenschaftliche Medicin, Berlin, 1834.

  65. Helmholtz H von. Handbuch der physiologischen Optik. Hamburg und Leipzig: Voss, 1896; 1334 p.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ebbecke U. Entoptische Versuche über Netzhautdurchblutung. Pflügers Arch 1921; 186: 220–237.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Stigler R. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Druckphosphens. Pflügers Arch 1906; 115: 248–272.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Purkinje JE. Beobachtungen und Versuche zur Physiologie der Sinne. II. Neue Beyträge zur Kenntniss des Sehens in subjectiver Hinsicht. Berlin: Reimer, 1825; 191 p.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Czermak J. Ueber das Accommodationsphosphen. Graefes Arch ges Ophthalmol 1858; 7: 147–154.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Berlin E. Ueber das Accommodationsphosphen. Graefes Arch ges Ophthalmol 1874; 20: 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Grüsser O-J, Grüsser-Cornehls U, Müller J. Neurophysiologische Grundlagen des Druckphosphens. In: Herzau V ed. Pathophysiologie des Sehens, Stuttgart: Enke, 1984; 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Grüsser O-J, Grüsser-Cornehls U, Schreiter U. Responses of cat retinal ganglion cells to eyeball deformation. A neurophysiological basis for pressure phosphenes. In: Maffei L ed. Pathophysiology of the Visual System, The Hague: Junk, 1981; 36–52.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Grüsser O-J, Grüsser-Cornehls U, Kusel R, Przybyszewski A. Responses of retinal ganglion cells to eyeball deformation: A neurophysiological basis for pressure phosphenes. Vision Res 1989; 29: 181–194.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Grüsser O-J. Interaction of efferent and afferent signals in visual perception. A history of ideas and experimental paradigms. Acta Psychol 1986; 63: 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Galen C. On the Usefulness of the Parts, 2 Vol. May MT, ed. and transl. Ithaca, 1968.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grüsser, OJ., Hagner, M. On the history of deformation phosphenes and the idea of internal light generated in the eye for the purpose of vision. Doc Ophthalmol 74, 57–85 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165665

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165665

Key words

Navigation