I would like the learned men here to explain these things I am going to
report.
Now the client who is recovering from -20 D prescription by the use of
the Original Systemof Self-Treatment by Rest Methods, recorded an
experience as follows:
At 2 meters distance from the 200 feet Snellen Chart (the one with the
big 200 feet C at the top), she says that looking to the right of the C
2 meters away, so to create an angle of 45 degrees, the big C seems
MORE BLACK.
I would like the learned men to explain to me why this happens, if it
is a fact of physiological optics or just that the retina is damaged
around the macula and becomes less damaged at the periphery.
If we think that a -20 D eye is elongated at least by 6 or 7
millimeters, ad has a bulge at the back, we could say that by looking
at 45 degrees to the left or to the right, the rays of the big C fall
an the side of the retina which is LESS DISTANT from the lens, than it
is when she looks at the big C in the fovea.
So this may be a good optical explanation: the C in the eccentric field
falls on a side of the retina which is less myopic than the fovea.
Now the strange fact is that when she regards the letter B, which is
half the size of the C, and is read by the normal eye at 100 feet, she
has no need to push away her gaze at 2 meters lateral, to see it
blacker, but sensibly less distance.
How this can be explained with the laws of optics?
Furthermore,
The girl says that when she reads microscopic print at 5, 7 or 9 cm,
she has no "eccentric fixation", that is, she is able to see a little
bit better where she is looking, the tiny letter she is reading (this
letters are 1/3 of a millimiter tall).
I would kindly appreciate any comments from the learned men who are
here.
Thanks.
Mike Tyner - 08 Jan 2005 14:03 GMT
> The girl says that when she reads microscopic print at 5, 7 or 9 cm,
> she has no "eccentric fixation", that is, she is able to see a little
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I would kindly appreciate any comments from the learned men who are
> here.
Look up "posterior staphyloma."
-MT
g.gatti@agora.it - 08 Jan 2005 16:45 GMT
Explain why the p.s. seems non existent at close distance regarding the
eccentric fixation.
Mike Tyner - 08 Jan 2005 19:11 GMT
> Explain why the p.s. seems non existent at close distance regarding the
> eccentric fixation.
At near, she can accommodate. 7-9 cm is well within her range of focus, so
she unconsciously clears the letters with no trouble. In other words there
is no blur, and you wouldn't expect variations in blur when there is no
blur.
Assuming she is _not_ wearing glasses, far away she is very blurry so subtle
differences in focal length would be easier to detect.
Posterior staphyloma may not be important. On a clock, if you draw a line
from 12:00 to 6:00, that line will always be longer (more nearsighted) than
a line drawn from 12:00 to 9:00 (45 degrees eccentric.) The macula is
further away than the peripheral retina.
As to why one letter works better than another, I have no answer except that
human perception introduces variations that make objective measurements
difficult, and 45-degree eccentric viewing can introduce additional
astigmatism.
-MT
g.gatti@agora.it - 09 Jan 2005 13:26 GMT
She has discarded completely her glasses since Jan 1st.
Please, I do not understand at all the clock example you gave.
Regarding human perception, this is the only field the medical men
should investigate, not the optical system, which is totally dependant
on human perception.
I will report the progress of the girl in reducing her "eccentric
fixation" as time goes by and practice is performed.
Mike Tyner - 09 Jan 2005 15:20 GMT
> Please, I do not understand at all the clock example you gave.
It's pretty simple.
You asked why a myope's blur decreased when viewing eccentrically at 45
degrees.
Draw a clock face.
Draw a line from 12:00 to 6:00. Measure it.
Draw a line from 12:00 to 9:00. Measure it.
Which line is longer?
If the pupil is at 12:00 and the macula is at 6:00, you should see why
eccentric viewing allows a myope to focus better.
> Regarding human perception, this is the only field the medical men
> should investigate, not the optical system, which is totally dependant
> on human perception.
So we should leave the optical system to medical women?
> I will report the progress of the girl in reducing her "eccentric
> fixation" as time goes by and practice is performed.
I'll be holding my breath.
-MT
g.gatti@agora.it - 09 Jan 2005 16:04 GMT
Excuse my stupidity, what you said was already explained by myself in
my first message.
So we remain with the question:
Why the trick of the clock does not work by looking at the letter B,
half the size of the C?
Perhaps some other learned men or women can answer this question.