 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005vitreous floaters simulator
Dear people I have had a PVD years ago and the damn floaters invaded my field of vision, when this happened to me I began programming a floaters simulator computer program to be able to show others what I see. I write this for letting you know about this simulator. This is not an advertisement, my simulator is totally free of charge and it is public domain, also my website is not sponsored in any way, so I'm not trying to sell anything nor to get paid in anyway.... I ask from here to the moderator of this group to let my message be posted. I think that my program could be useful for patients and doctors, for patients because they could see that other people with vitreous problems is seeing something similar (it is always good to know that you are not the only one seeing these things), and for doctors because they could see what their patients are seeing and understand better to they. I made some search in this group using google and found no reference to the simulator so I decide to post this, you can access my website in http://www.floatershell.com or if you preffer you can download the program directly from this link: http://www.floatershell.com/floaters-v21.zip I hope it will be useful for someone. Best regards RamOn see www.eyefloaters.com and www.vitreousfloaters.com. these are two sites with 2 different doctors in the USA who use a laser to address this problem. Thanks, I knew about these doctors in USA, unfortunately I have fast moving floaters, my vitreous is so liquid. After reading what people say on using laser to rid of their floaters I found success cases only for people with some "big" and "stationary" floaters... no success for "plagued" eyes :( I was not trying to find a solution to my problem, I offered a "tool" to show people how floaters looks like. After more than five years since my PVD happen, I have loss my faith in solving this problem. Vitrectomy is not an alternative for me, well, maybe now with the sutureless technique... Anyway thanks for the sugestion. Best regards RamOn > see www.eyefloaters.com and www.vitreousfloaters.com. these are two > sites with 2 different doctors in the USA who use a laser to address > this problem. > Dear people > > I have had a PVD years ago and the damn floaters invaded my field of > vision, when this happened to me I began programming a floaters > simulator computer program to be able to show others what I see. The simulator is pretty good! The initial photo is exactly like the floaters i see. Some points though 1. The impression i have always had is that my floaters slowly descend in the direction of gravity once my eye stops moving....yours tend to remain at the same position with only 1 sinking. 2. You have what i am assuming to be evidence of blood corpuscles in the retina moving around as tiny white 'bacteria like movements'. If i do a handstand and stand back up i see this same motion only very much brighter (seeing stars?) If you are ready for some alternative views on floaters i have some ideas which are logical but need some reflection to understand fully. 1. Vision happens in our minds we only imagine what we see 2. Our sense of sight is a literal print out of what is seen by the eye but it is only a crude representation of what we eventually are capable of imagining we see using our mind. For example there are very few colour receptors outside of the centre of our vision but the illusion of colour is fully present in our entire field of view. Only an involved test can convince you that you dont see colour very well outside of your centre of vision. 3. We have a logical detail analytical reasoning left brain hemisphere that breaks things down into small parts to understand them and make sense of them. 4. We have a bigger picture right brain hemisphere which sees in whole, artistic spacial terms. 5. We ourselves can think in terms of being predominantly left brained or right brained or something in the middle. 6. An overly analytical detailed left brain view of our sense of sight/vision insists that what we see must be coming from our eyes and does not come from what we imagine. 7. An overly artistic view of our view of our sense of sight/vision only sees what is imagined. Whats this got to do with floaters? Its been suggested that if you are left brained you are more inclined to see floaters because you emphasise your sense of sight and deny a more artistic view of what is seen. In your imagination you **know** the floaters are not really there in the wider world and yet you insist on **allowing** them to be visable. If you were more creative/artistic you would instead create something more pleasing but instead, if you see the floaters you are noticing the detail of something annoying and analysing the parts of it. Similarly some people focus on a dripping tap or a person sniffing and it bugs them and annoys them, but others seem oblivious. In our culture we are kind of encouraged to be left brained from an early age. So not seeing floaters is said to be related to letting go of control...being more relaxed...being more artistic creative spontaneous. Make sense? Myopes incidently see floaters more than longsighted people. A 3 diopter myope is focusing 1mm in front of his retina and a 3D hyperope 1mm beyond the retina. Thats a tiny difference given the size of the vitreous chamber. It could account for why there is a noticable difference ***or*** it could reflect the common observation that myopes are detail analytical logical reasoning thinking people compared to hyperopes who really dont like to get bothered with details at all. Andrew > 1. The impression i have always had is that my floaters slowly descend > in the direction of gravity once my eye stops moving Which is surprising since everything on the retina is reversed. For you to see floaters moving down, they have to be moving upward in the vitreous. > 2. You have what i am assuming to be evidence of blood corpuscles in > the retina moving around as tiny white 'bacteria like movements'. If > i do a handstand and stand back up i see this same motion only very > much brighter (seeing stars?) You assume these are blood corpuscles? Textbooks say venous turbulence causes bright stars. They also say that blood doesn't normally enter the vitreous. > If you are ready for some alternative views on floaters i have some > ideas which are logical but need some reflection to understand fully. > > 1. Vision happens in our minds we only imagine what we see Therefore the principles of optics are irrelevant. No retinal image is ever involved. We imagine everything. > 2. Our sense of sight is a literal print out of what is seen by the > eye but it is only a crude representation of what we eventually are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an involved test can convince you that you dont see colour very well > outside of your centre of vision. What would that "involved test" be? I recall a "rod-free" area of retina. I don't recall a "cone-free" area. > 3. We have a logical detail analytical reasoning left brain hemisphere > that breaks things down into small parts to understand them and make > sense of them. Except many people do this on the right side of their brain, and other people don't lateralize well enough to be "left-brained" or "right-brained." > 4. We have a bigger picture right brain hemisphere which sees in > whole, artistic spacial terms. Again, this isn't true for everyone. > 5. We ourselves can think in terms of being predominantly left brained > or right brained or something in the middle. And what you think is always more reliable than what you show on PET scan. > 6. An overly analytical detailed left brain view of our sense of > sight/vision insists that what we see must be coming from our eyes and > does not come from what we imagine. So we really depend on hallucinations? > 7. An overly artistic view of our view of our sense of sight/vision > only sees what is imagined. I think you mean that we over-analyze everything we see in our right visual field, and we are overly artistic about everything we see to the left of fixation. No? > Whats this got to do with floaters? > > Its been suggested that if you are left brained you are more inclined > to see floaters because you emphasise your sense of sight and deny a > more artistic view of what is seen. It's been suggested that floaters appearing to the right of fixation are "analytical" floaters and floaters appearing to the left of fixation are "artistic" floaters. > In your imagination you **know** the floaters are not really there in > the wider world and yet you insist on **allowing** them to be visable. Ah.. there's a solution for those folks who are plagued by floaters. Just don't **allow** them. > If you were more creative/artistic you would instead create something > more pleasing but instead, if you see the floaters you are noticing > the detail of something annoying and analysing the parts of it. Therefore your floaters are your own fault. > it bugs them and annoys them, but others seem oblivious. Yup. Some people are oblivious. > So not seeing floaters is said to be related to letting go of > control...being more relaxed...being more artistic creative > spontaneous. > > Make sense? You don't really want an answer. > Myopes incidently see floaters more than longsighted people. A 3 > diopter myope is focusing 1mm in front of his retina and a 3D hyperope [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > compared to hyperopes who really dont like to get bothered with > details at all. Or it could be that myopes have longer eyes, more retinal stretching and more vitreous debris. Nah. -MT Mike Tyner said > 1. The impression i have always had is that my floaters slowly descend >> in the direction of gravity once my eye stops moving >Which is surprising since everything on the retina is reversed. Good point! I must be imagining them then? >> 2. You have what i am assuming to be evidence of blood corpuscles in > the retina Thanks for the confirmation. >>there are very > few colour receptors outside of the centre of our vision but the > illusion of colour is fully present in our entire field of view. Only > an involved test can convince you that you dont see colour very well > outside of your centre of vision. >What would that "involved test" be? I recall a "rod-free" area of retina. I don't recall a "cone-free" area. In the most central 1 degree of foveal vision their are about 150,000 cones per mm2 at 5 degrees 60K at 10 degrees 15k at 15 degrees and outwards to the periphery about 5k per mm2 5/150 is a big reduction in colour sensitivity. At the very periphery of the retina there is an increase in cones by a few k. You can figure out the test for yourself maybe? Hint: Peripheral colour vision (not the exstreme periphery) is poor. The mind builds a picture by making sweeps of what is there. Bigger hint: What if the eye only fixates a central target? Even bigger hint: but unknown coloured objects are in the periphery? > think you mean that we over-analyze everything we see in our right visual field, and we are overly artistic about everything we see to the left of fixation. No? Our best vision is in the very centre of the fovea. The foveal vision is shared by both right and left hemispheres for each single eye. Our best vision is a truely tiny area moving towards a maximum point of best acuity which is less than 1 degree of central vision. At 1 degree there are about 150K of cones but the best point is approaching 158k. The outer area of foveal vision is many many times greater in area than the very tiny point of best vision. When the mind seeing 20/10 is attending to its best vision the peripheral vision to that point of best attention is still entirely with in an area of left and right awareness for a single eye for 5 degrees either side of that point of best vision. Momentarily we can be aware of our visual field either to the left or right of our centre of sight outside of the fovea so that only left or right hemispheric views are possible. This lasts only for an instant of time before eye movement occurs. When we are able to direct our best attention to an object our centre of sight is always seen in terms of both left and right hemispheres if it is seen in a balanced manner. Make sense? Andrew (typed on the beta.google version - apologies if two posts made) > Good point! I must be imagining them then? No, your imagination contributes the "gravity" part. > Thanks for the confirmation. So there _is_ blood in the vitreous? > 5/150 is a big reduction in colour sensitivity. Rods decrease also. > Our best vision is in the very centre of the fovea. The foveal vision > is shared by both right and left hemispheres for each single eye. Zat so? > Momentarily we can be aware of our visual field either to the left or > right of our centre of sight outside of the fovea so that only left or > right hemispheric views are possible. This lasts only for an instant of > time before eye movement occurs. I hadn't heard of voluntary hemianopsia. We just shut off half our vision? > When we are able to direct our best attention to an object our centre > of sight is always seen in terms of both left and right hemispheres if > it is seen in a balanced manner. > > Make sense? Anything's possible in a quantum universe. -MT Mike Perhaps you inhabit some alternate universe? I said: 2. You have what i am assuming to be evidence of blood corpuscles in the retina moving around You reply: "So there _is_ blood in the vitreous?" > 2. You have what i am assuming to be evidence of blood corpuscles in > the retina moving around > > You reply: > > "So there _is_ blood in the vitreous?" The point of that was - you've made yet another false assumption. There is normally no blood in the vitreous. You didn't address this. -MT Dear Mr and Mrs Tyner I have some concerns about Mike. He is becoming quite disruptive in school lately. He can be a very helpful person but occasionally he seems to get frustrated and quite irrational. Is everything ok at home? He seems a little conflicted lately For example <andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com> wrote >>2. You have what i am assuming to be evidence of blood >>corpuscles in >>the retina moving around But Mike replied "So there _is_ blood in the vitreous?" Andrew said > > Our best vision is in the very centre of the fovea. The foveal vision is shared by both right and left hemispheres for each single eye. Mike replies > Zat so? http://www.hull.ac.uk/psychology/staff.pages/michal/page%204.htm Andrew said "Momentarily we can be aware of our visual field either to the left or right of our centre of sight outside of the fovea so that only left or right hemispheric views are possible. This lasts only for an instant of time before eye movement occurs." Mike replied > I hadn't heard of voluntary hemianopsia. We just shut off half our vision? http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:WvNu-HP8FFIJ:cogprints.org/923/00/Gallistel.p df+detecting+hemispheric+visual+field+bias+&hl=en "The pictures were shown in quick flashes in the left or right visual half-fields of normal subjects. The task was to press a button as rapidly as possible to indicate whether or not the seen object was a member of a predesignated category. The results showed different latency patterns in the two visual half-fields. In the left visual half-field (right hemisphere), responses were much faster for typical members than for atypical members; there was no difference between typical and atypical exemplars in the right visual half-field (left hemisphere). Importantly, decisions for typical members were faster in the left visual half-field than in the right visual half-field whereas decisions for atypical members were made faster in the right visual half-field." Andrew said > > When we are able to direct our best attention to an object our centre of sight is always seen in terms of both left and right hemispheres if it is seen in a balanced manner. > > Make sense? Mike replied > Anything's possible in a quantum universe. Please contact me if you wish to discuss this further Yours truely Mr Right as you were told previously when you arrived here a couple of weeks ago-- you sure are trying hard to gain validation. Unfortunately, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you're not going to find it here in this newsgroup. > as you were told previously when you arrived here a couple of weeks > ago-- you sure are trying hard to gain validation. Unfortunately, in > case you haven't figured it out yet, you're not going to find it here > in this newsgroup. I find it interesting. I seem to have moved beyond wanting validation. I seem to have moved beyond reacting and replying. I am learning quite a bit actually. About myself and about Vision. All of us posters here distort what seems true in some manner or other. But ultimately there is a truth. I find it interesting to to feel that i am moving in that direction. Others can self distruct or whatever. Meanwhile its been interesting I concur >> as you were told previously when you arrived here a couple of weeks >> ago-- you sure are trying hard to gain validation. Unfortunately, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Meanwhile its been interesting Mike Tyner said > 1. The impression i have always had is that my floaters slowly descend >> in the direction of gravity once my eye stops moving >Which is surprising since everything on the retina is reversed. Good point! I must be imagining them then? >> 2. You have what i am assuming to be evidence of blood corpuscles in > the retina Thanks for the confirmation. >>there are very > few colour receptors outside of the centre of our vision but the > illusion of colour is fully present in our entire field of view. Only > an involved test can convince you that you dont see colour very well > outside of your centre of vision. >What would that "involved test" be? I recall a "rod-free" area of retina. I don't recall a "cone-free" area. In the most central 1 degree of foveal vision their are about 150,000 cones per mm2 at 5 degrees 60K at 10 degrees 15k at 15 degrees and outwards to the periphery about 5k per mm2 5/150 is a big reduction in colour sensitivity. At the very periphery of the retina there is an increase in cones by a few k. You can figure out the test for yourself maybe? Hint: Peripheral colour vision (not the exstreme periphery) is poor. The mind builds a picture by making sweeps of what is there. Bigger hint: What if the eye only fixates a central target? Even bigger hint: but unknown coloured objects are in the periphery? > think you mean that we over-analyze everything we see in our right visual field, and we are overly artistic about everything we see to the left of fixation. No? Our best vision is in the very centre of the fovea. The foveal vision is shared by both right and left hemispheres for each single eye. Our best vision is a truely tiny area moving towards a maximum point of best acuity which is less than 1 degree of central vision. At 1 degree there are about 150K of cones but the best point is approaching 158k. The outer area of foveal vision is many many times greater in area than the very tiny point of best vision. When the mind seeing 20/10 is attending to its best vision the peripheral vision to that point of best attention is still entirely with in an area of left and right awareness for a single eye for 5 degrees either side of that point of best vision. Momentarily we can be aware of our visual field either to the left or right of our centre of sight outside of the fovea so that only left or right hemispheric views are possible. This lasts only for an instant of time before eye movement occurs. When we are able to direct our best attention to an object our centre of sight is always seen in terms of both left and right hemispheres if it is seen in a balanced manner. Make sense? Andrew (typed on the beta.google version - apologies if two posts made) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.