The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Strip Extensiometry for Comparison of the Mechanical Response of Bovine, Rabbit, and Human Corneas
Abstract
Specimens of bovine, rabbit, and human corneas were systematically tested in uniaxial tension to experimentally determine their effective nonlinear stress-strain relations, and hysteresis. Cyclic tensile tests were performed over the physiologic load range of the cornea, up to a maximum of 10 percent strain beyond slack strain. Dimensional changes to corneal test specimens, due to varying laboratory environmental conditions, were also assessed. The measured stress-strain data was found to closely fit exponential power function relations typical of collagenous tissues when appropriate account was taken of specimen slack strain. These constitutive relations are very similar for rabbit, human and bovine corneas; there was no significant difference between the species after preconditioning by one cycle. The uniaxial stress strain curves for all species behave similarly in that their tangent moduli increase at high loads and decrease at low loads as a function of cycling. In the bovine and rabbit data, there is a general trend towards more elastic behavior from the first to second cycles, but there is little variation in these parameters from the second to third cycles. In comparison, the human data demonstrates relatively little change between cycles. Increases in width of corneal test specimens, up to a maximum of 2 percent were found to occur under 95 percent relative humidity test conditions over 10 minutes elapsed time test periods, while specimens which were exposed to normal laboratory conditions (45 percent RH) were found to shrink in width up to a maximum of 9.5 percent over the same elapsed time period. The thickness of the test specimens were observed to decrease by 3 percent in 95 percent relative humidity and by 12 percent in 45 percent relative humidity over the same elapsed time period.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Brillouin Optical Microscopy for Corneal Biomechanics
Scarcelli, G., Pineda, R., & Yun, S. H. (2012) · Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science · doi:10.1167/iovs.11-8281 · Cited by 354
Ahearne, M., Yang, Y., El Haj, A. J., Then, K. Y., & Liu, K.-K. (2005) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0065 · Cited by 313
Biomechanical properties of human and porcine corneas
Elsheikh, A., Alhasso, D., & Rama, P. (2008) · Experimental Eye Research · doi:10.1016/j.exer.2008.02.006 · Cited by 253
Full-field deformation of bovine cornea under constrained inflation conditions
Boyce, B. L., Grazier, J. M., Jones, R. E., & Nguyen, T. D. (2008) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.06.011 · Cited by 191
Keeping an Eye on Decellularized Corneas: A Review of Methods, Characterization and Applications
Wilson, S., Sidney, L., Dunphy, S., Rose, J., & Hopkinson, A. (2013) · Journal of Functional Biomaterials · doi:10.3390/jfb4030114 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoeltzel, D. A., Altman, P., Buzard, K., & Choe, K.-I.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
- Publisher
- ASME International
- Published
- 1992-05-01
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 202-215
- ISSN
- 0148-0731 (ISSN-L)
- 1528-8951
- OpenAlex
- W1981533726
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Strip Extensiometry for Comparison of the Mechanical Response of Bovine, Rabbit, and Human Corneas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1115/1.2891373
- The paper
- Hoeltzel, D. A., Altman, P., Buzard, K., & Choe, K.-I. (1992). Strip Extensiometry for Comparison of the Mechanical Response of Bovine, Rabbit, and Human Corneas. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2891373
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.