Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006
Diopters to 20/something conversion. The math and science behind this!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 10 Jan 2006 11:20 GMT Hello everyone, post your dioptric pescription(how bad are your eyes), your UCVA(uncorrected) and BSCVA(corrected by glasses) Also if you know anyone's vision, post that too. I have done much research on the correlation of diopters and 20/xxx and have compiled several charts, formulae, tables and comments on the results obtained thus far. To test for this, do it in room light or dim light. Make sure the eyechart is well illuminated and your not squinting at all or recalling from memory or guessing. Blur preception is of course allowed.
I and most optometrists have found that -.25 diopters doesnt cost you a single line but makes the existing line blurry but still readable. Some say it costs half a line. Such as if you can see half of 20/15 with a -.25 lens, youll be a full 20/20 but wont be able to see better than that uncorrected. Another example is if your seeing all of 20/20, you may miss half of the 20/20 with -.25 diopters. Others have said it didnt affect their ability to read a line, just made it harder to do so.
Minus half diopter(-.5) is generally accepted as resulting in one full line loss. This means 20/15 becomes 20/20 and 20/20 becomes 20/25. If you can see half of 20/15 youll be seeing half of 20/20.
Minus one diopter(-1) generally gives you half visual accuracy. My friends who see 20/20 with glasses see 20/40 without their -1 glasses. Ditto for 20/15 with -1, 20/30 uncorrected. I was 20/50 corrected to 20/25 with a -1 lens years ago.
Higher dioptric values become harder to calculate and predict, especially when you get to -6 and up. Someone could be -4.5 another -5.25 and both see 20/400 UCVA. The -5.25 probably will see a much blurrier 20/400 than the -4.5 but generally, 20/400 represents a moderate of myopia around -5 diopters. One website said the range was -4 to -6 for 20/400 and your best corrected vision played a big factor. Someone whos 20/15 corrected needs more diopters to see the same blur as another with 20/30 corrected. For me, my left eye at -5 or so couldnt see 20/400 while my right eye at -4.5 or so just barely, barely saw 20/400. I know two people who passed V3 requirement which states you have to be 20/400 or better uncorrected and both were barely 20/400 with -5.5 pescriptions with 20/15 corrected. Those two guys said they dont know anyone else -5.5 or more who passed V3 which requires 20/400. They probably didnt have the great 20/15 corrected vision with glasses so for them, -5 was the limit(20/20 corrected) I am not correctable to 20/20 so my limit is even less.
Few eyecharts go beyond 20/400 so info is scarce past this. I have a solid grasp on dioptric values below -6(mild to moderate myopia), but for -6 and up which is high myopia I am less certain how this converts to diopters. I do know high myopes are worse than 20/400 but how bad exactly? Also theres much fewer high myopes than low and moderate myopes so much of my info is on low(er) myopes and their diopters to snellen accuracy.
One could stand closer but then accomodation needs to be taken into account. I can see the 20/200 E from 10 feet less blurry than the 20/400 E from 20 feet. At 5 feet I see the 20/70 line but im certainly worse than 20/280. I experienced .67 diopter accomodation from the 5 feet mark.
If any of you have charts and formulae, on what expotentional scale does this equal to? I know that going from -1 to -2 is only twice as bad(20/40 and 20/80), but going from -3 to -6 is definately more than twice as bad(20/150 and 20/500?), blurs much more than twice. Does this gap become even larger still at -6 to -12(20/500? and 20/????) where the number of times more blurry increases expotentionally?
Me and many others are curious about this and this topic has been posted before many years ago. Its also useful for some occupations such as pilot, soldier, law enforcement, etc where they have a requirement for both corrected(BCVA) and uncorrected(UCVA) vision and people ask all the time if their UCVA is good enough to make the cut.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 10 Jan 2006 11:23 GMT ive edited and deleted trying to make the paragraphs show correctly. Let me retry
Hello everyone, post your dioptric pescription(how bad are your eyes), your UCVA(uncorrected) and BSCVA(corrected by glasses) Also if you know anyone's vision, post that too. I have done much research on the correlation of diopters and 20/xxx and have compiled several charts, formulae, tables and comments on the results obtained thus far. To test for this, do it in room light or dim light. Make sure the eyechart is well illuminated and your not squinting at all or recalling from memory or guessing. Blur preception is of course allowed.
I and most optometrists have found that -.25 diopters doesnt cost you a single line but makes the existing line blurry but still readable. Some say it costs half a line. Such as if you can see half of 20/15 with a -.25 lens, youll be a full 20/20 but wont be able to see better than that uncorrected. Another example is if your seeing all of 20/20, you may miss half of the 20/20 with -.25 diopters. Others have said it didnt affect their ability to read a line, just made it harder to do so.
Minus half diopter(-.5) is generally accepted as resulting in one full line loss. This means 20/15 becomes 20/20 and 20/20 becomes 20/25. If you can see half of 20/15 youll be seeing half of 20/20.
Minus one diopter(-1) generally gives you half visual accuracy. My friends who see 20/20 with glasses see 20/40 without their -1 glasses. Ditto for 20/15 with -1, 20/30 uncorrected. I was 20/50 corrected to 20/25 with a -1 lens years ago.
Higher dioptric values become harder to calculate and predict, especially when you get to -6 and up. Someone could be -4.5 another -5.25 and both see 20/400 UCVA. The -5.25 probably will see a much blurrier 20/400 than the -4.5 but generally, 20/400 represents a moderate of myopia around -5 diopters. One website said the range was -4 to -6 for 20/400 and your best corrected vision played a big factor. Someone whos 20/15 corrected needs more diopters to see the same blur as another with 20/30 corrected. For me, my left eye at -5 or so couldnt see 20/400 while my right eye at -4.5 or so just barely, barely saw 20/400. I know two people who passed V3 requirement which states you have to be 20/400 or better uncorrected and both were barely 20/400 with -5.5 pescriptions with 20/15 corrected. Those two guys said they dont know anyone else -5.5 or more who passed V3 which requires 20/400. They probably didnt have the great 20/15 corrected vision with glasses so for them, -5 was the limit(20/20 corrected) I am not correctable to 20/20 so my limit is even less.
Few eyecharts go beyond 20/400 so info is scarce past this. I have a solid grasp on dioptric values below -6(mild to moderate myopia), but for -6 and up which is high myopia I am less certain how this converts to diopters. I do know high myopes are worse than 20/400 but how bad exactly? Also theres much fewer high myopes than low and moderate myopes so much of my info is on low(er) myopes and their diopters to snellen accuracy.
One could stand closer but then accomodation needs to be taken into account. I can see the 20/200 E from 10 feet less blurry than the 20/400 E from 20 feet. At 5 feet I see the 20/70 line but im certainly worse than 20/280. I experienced .67 diopter accomodation from the 5 feet mark.
If any of you have charts and formulae, on what expotentional scale does this equal to? I know that going from -1 to -2 is only twice as bad(20/40 and 20/80), but going from -3 to -6 is definately more than twice as bad(20/150 and 20/500?), blurs much more than twice. Does this gap become even larger still at -6 to -12(20/500? and 20/????) where the number of times more blurry increases expotentionally?
Me and many others are curious about this and this topic has been posted before many years ago. Its also useful for some occupations such as pilot, soldier, law enforcement, etc where they have a requirement for both corrected(BCVA) and uncorrected(UCVA) vision and people ask all the time if their UCVA is good enough to make the cut.
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Jan 2006 15:13 GMT Dear Aceman,
Subject: Establishing a relationship between eye-chart and trial-lens
To do what you request, you just need the tools to do it.
(Assume that a MEDICAL exam has been made -- and there are no MEDICAL problmems -- like glaucoma, etc. All ODs are required to check for these conditions, and report them to you. There is GREAT VALUE in this part of the exam. I always INSIST that the person go through this process BEFORE the begin working on true-prevention with the plus.)
In a well lighted room, have the person look at the eye chart.
Let us say he reads 20/60. You then start placing stronger minus lenses in front of his face until one lens "clears" the 20/20 line. That is how you measure the refractive state of the natural eye.
Do this systeematically, under "room" illumiantion and you can establish this relationship or "curve" very quickly.
Was that you question?
Best,
Otis
William Stacy - 10 Jan 2006 15:31 GMT > Let us say he reads 20/60. You then start placing > stronger minus lenses in front of his face until > one lens "clears" the 20/20 line. That is > how you measure the refractive state > of the natural eye. THAT IS *NOT* HOW IT IS DONE, AND WILL NOT WORK EXCEPT FOR SOME MYOPES WITH NO ASTIGMATISM.
Re the conversion idea, I suggest ace go into deja news and research "The Dead Horse" equation I and others developed several years ago on this news group. Been there, done that.
w.stacy, o.d.
Mike Tyner - 10 Jan 2006 19:20 GMT > stronger minus lenses in front of his face until > one lens "clears" the 20/20 line. That is > how you measure the refractive state > of the natural eye. If you want inaccurate and unreliable results, that's how you do it.
-MT
A Lieberman - 10 Jan 2006 23:37 GMT > Let us say he reads 20/60. You then start placing > stronger minus lenses in front of his face until > one lens "clears" the 20/20 line. That is > how you measure the refractive state > of the natural eye. Dear Ace,
Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in the position to give medical advice.
Sure looks like medical advice above.....
Allen
otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Jan 2006 02:17 GMT Dear Allen,
Subject: The difference between measureing the refractive state of the natural eye -- and calling a measurement a "medical problem".
The objective measurements could be made by ANYONE with some traning an experience.
Assuming the retina is inherently capable of 20/20 (not amblyopic), then let us talk about measureing a POSITIVE refractive state for the natural eye.
In this case, you have the person read the Snellen (in room illumination) and he reads 20/20.
His refractive state might be zero -- or some positive value.
What you do then, is to take your tria-frame, and using your trial-lens kit, you place increasintly stronger PLUS lenses in front of his eyes, until you find a lens-strength that "just blurrs" the 20/20 line.
This is a measure of a positive refractive state for the young eye.
In NONE of these measurements have I suggested "medicine" or anything like that. These are simple objective measurements -- i.e., science -- not medicine.
If I said that I was going to write a "prescription" then everything would "change".
BUT I NEVER SAID THAT!
Get it? Yet?
Otis
Mike Tyner - 11 Jan 2006 02:38 GMT > The objective measurements could be made by ANYONE with > some traning an experience. Where did you get your "traning and experience"?
> Assuming the retina is inherently capable of 20/20 (not > amblyopic), then let us talk about measureing a > POSITIVE refractive state for the natural eye. That requires NEGATIVE lenses, right?
> In this case, you have the person read the Snellen (in room > illumination) and he reads 20/20. > > His refractive state might be zero -- or some positive value. Or -050, or +050-100x090. But never mind, go on...
> What you do then, is to take your tria-frame, and using > your trial-lens kit, you place increasintly stronger PLUS lenses > in front of his eyes, until you find a lens-strength that "just blurrs" > the 20/20 line. But I though you said he had a POSITIVE refractive state? Oh... you switched the signs. OK.
> In NONE of these measurements have I suggested "medicine" > or anything like that. These are simple objective measurements -- > i.e., science -- not medicine. Of course you're the expert on what's medicine and what's science, having never been to medical school and self-taught in the scientific method.
Science according to Otis.
> If I said that I was going to write a "prescription" then everything > would "change". No, just tell him what to do about his condition, against the advice of his physician. There your cookie crumbles.
> BUT I NEVER SAID THAT! > > Get it? Yet? Got it. You're peddling cures for myopia.
-MT
otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Jan 2006 02:49 GMT Dear Mike,
There you go again, converting refarctive-state measurements into "medicine" which they are manifestly NOT.
Otis
Mike Tyner - 11 Jan 2006 03:13 GMT > There you go again, converting refarctive-state measurements > into "medicine" which they are manifestly NOT. So, what else can you teach us about science, medicine, and "refarctive states?"
-MT
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 11 Jan 2006 02:55 GMT Lets not argue about other topics in this thread. I will go back on topic and talk about diopters to 20/xxx correlation. So guys, post your pescription, UCVA and BCVA and the results of anyone you know for us to learn
William Stacy - 11 Jan 2006 02:48 GMT > The objective measurements could be made by ANYONE with > some traning an experience. And then he goes on to describe a SUBJECTIVE method of measuring hyperopia (a very primitive, and certainly NOT an *objective* method). Any body who doesn't know the difference between objective refraction and subjective refraction should NOT be telling ANYONE how to "do it".
Speaking of subjective and objective evaluations, I recommend the recliner for otis, handcuffs for dick, and a straight jacket for ace.
Why do old reruns of the 3 stooges keep popping up in my mind???
w.stacy, o.d.
otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Jan 2006 03:21 GMT Dear Wiliam,
If I paid $ 100 k for college, and 120 K for OD school, I guess I would be stuck on my God-hood.
Ace is asking straight questions.
Why not attempt to give him straight answers -- rahter than insulting him.
Ace is learning a great deal -- about you arrogance in this discussion.
It that profesional?
What does Ace-Man think of your response -- I wonder.
Otis
Mike Tyner - 11 Jan 2006 04:50 GMT > If I paid $ 100 k for college, and > 120 K for OD school, I guess > I would be stuck on my > God-hood. Yes. Then you could haunt the engineering newsgroups, redefine their jargon, change the sign conventions, and claim engineers are incompetent because they don't warn drivers about bridges ripping apart in a stiff breeze.
-MT
Neil Brooks - 11 Jan 2006 07:04 GMT >What does Ace-Man think >of your response -- I wonder. Who gives a sh.t -- I wonder.
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
|
|
|