this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16383 readers
282 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bigpEE@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This is just saying that the glial cells help make this less bad than it could be, no? Nothing about why neurons behind receptors would be worse

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, glia support neurons; they do things like redirecting blood flow to more-active-than-usual neurons, mylenate axons, etc. They wouldn't form a mesh around neurons' photoreceptors the same way they do neurons' somas and axons. What the article describes is that glia actually are critical at allowing for color vision during the day and night vision at night, since on land we'd get too much blue light to see color with much fidelity were it not for glia, and a similar filtration process helps us see at night. It's not that it's not as bad as it could be, it's actually that vision is better this way (barring one small blind spot outside of our fovea--which, being outside of the fovea, would have low acuity anyways).

[–] bigpEE@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

Couldn't a neurons-behind-eyes human just have fewer blue receptors? Or a brain that attenuates the blue signal?