Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2006
Interesting article - Adaptive Optics
|
|
Thread rating:  |
The Central Scrutinizer - 09 Feb 2006 18:08 GMT Never heard of this before, but it sounds fascinating...
>From http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=693 PixelOptics is currently just one of several companies trying to develop "supervision" for everyone -- including the Department of Defense
PixelOptics just won a $3.5M USD grant from the Department of Defense for research to perfect "supervision" technology. The company claims that it can double the quality of a client's eyesight by using extremely sensitive lasers capable of detecting the slightest anomalies on the surface of the eye - then compensating for those defects using a powered optoelectronic lens. PixelOptics uses electronically controlled pixels that are embedded inside of traditional eyeglass lens to bend and manipulate light as it enters the lens.. After the software makes some adjustments, the pixel will then be programmed to fix any problems that a person may have.
Since PixelOptics hardware is dynamic, the company also envisions future systems to adapt to light levels and ambient conditions to further improve vision. Adaptive optics are hardly a new concept; researchers and the military have been using adaptive optics on telescopes and spy satellites to compensate for irregularities in the atmosphere. Using such small scale adaptive optics for human eyes, on the other hand, is certainly a new concept that we will see a lot more of in the future.
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 09 Feb 2006 18:42 GMT Scott MacRae, MD at the University of Rochester Medical Center did a lot of research in adaptive optics as a part of development of wavefront-guided excimer laser ablations for refractive surgery. They were able to measure and adjust lower order aberrations (sphere and cylinder) as well as higher order aberrations with patients.
Interestingly, it was found that when all aberrations were removed and the patient had "pure optics", the patients subjectively complained of poor vision quality. Induce some aberrations, and the vision quality improved. Apparently human vision is designed to accept and enhance some higher order aberrations.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Neil Brooks - 09 Feb 2006 18:53 GMT >Scott MacRae, MD at the University of Rochester Medical Center did a >lot of research in adaptive optics as a part of development of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >improved. Apparently human vision is designed to accept and enhance >some higher order aberrations. I find things like this fascinating, if maddening ;-)
In my case--congenital/infantile esotropia--three subsequent strabismus surgeries have failed to achieve stable orthotropia or reasonable stereopsis. The (my) theory is: fusion is a heavily neurologic process. Though the mechanical alignment may be perfect, the fusion center may be underdeveloped, providing little 'detent' to encourage long-term stability in alignment.
Further, the mind has adapted somewhat to seeing a certain way, providing an apparent tendency to restore alignment to what it finds most comfortable.
Another example from my story: accommodative spasm. Despite the fact that I now wear full plus contact lenses--the Rx derived from Atropinised wavefront aberrometry--and appropriate near-vision add over-Rx, my eyes still have a dramatic tendency toward pseudomyopia, even without apparent provocation.
While some of this can be ascribed to ciliary hypertonicity and/or 'instrument myopia,' it's also possible that a portion is due to a neurologic predisposition--something that refractive surgery, extra plus, clear lens exchange, etc. likely won't change.
If only I had worn a minus lens ... you know ... at the threshold .... maybe I wouldn't have developed this stair-case hyperopia.
Sigh.
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
The Central Scrutinizer - 09 Feb 2006 20:18 GMT >If only I had worn a minus lens ... you know ... at the threshold .... maybe I wouldn't have developed this stair-case hyperopia. Hey Neil - *WHAP!* ;)
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 09 Feb 2006 20:30 GMT posted a reply but it didnt show up so heres it again. high order aberrations prevent the eye from seeing its best. I get 20/30 with conventional glasses. Looking forward to 20/15 or even 20/10!
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 09 Feb 2006 20:45 GMT By the way, I have more to say!
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=693
a recent article about how adaptive optics may be materalizing! Imagine glasses that correct your higher order aberrations too! I have the feeling alot more people will be wearing glasses, even those seeing 20/20 when they find out what 20/10 is like! Suddenly those 20/40 very low myopes that dont bother with glasses because it doesnt make much of a difference will suddenly embrace glasses because now that their high order aberrations get corrected in addition to their refractive error, they will really see clear!
I have the feeling millions who got laser or other refractive surgury will be disapointed to be back in glasses in order to enjoy good, crisp vision. All forms of refractive surgury, especially laser induces more aberrations so they arent seeing as good as they should. I can see RS being alot less popular because it cant give you vision as clear as conventional glasses, much less wavefront glasses! If someone was given the choice of getting 20/20 with lasik or 20/10 with wavefront glasses, almost all will choose wavefront glasses! Lasik would be a complete waste for me since ill still need glasses to see clearly and may in fact also need reading glasses.
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 09 Feb 2006 21:01 GMT One more comment: I read that true wavefront glasses needs to be dynamic because your eyes are constantly moving and shifting focus so youll need glasses with tiny sensors that follow your every eye movement. Stationary wavefront only works if you keep your eyes perfectly still and centered so they align with the aberrations. We need something that follows the movement of your eyes to keep the aberrations aligned at all times. This poses many technological challenges and may be some 15 to 20 years away from reaching the market. There already is (stationary) wavefront glasses out but my friends say 9 out of 10 people see no difference or they actually see a little worse! The 1 in 10 who do see a difference have a large number of aberrations, usually from a bad lasik experience. One guy had lots of glare and his wavefront glasses reduced the glare.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 10 Feb 2006 03:00 GMT > By the way, I have more to say! we all wait with baited breath to hear what aceman has to say.
Mike Tyner - 09 Feb 2006 22:09 GMT > posted a reply but it didnt show up so heres it again. high order > aberrations prevent the eye from seeing its best. I get 20/30 with > conventional glasses. Looking forward to 20/15 or even 20/10! Here's hoping your 20/30 limitation is optical, and not neurological.
-MT
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 09 Feb 2006 23:53 GMT I pinhole to a full 20/25 and I can almost see the 20/20 line but its too small because of my minus glasses which minify. Because alot of my aberrations are located on the center, the pinhole cant help me 100%. With tomorrows glasses I may be like 20/15 WITH minification(which would make me a little better than 20/15 in fact) I also got topographies and have already been commented by several about my aberrations and astigmastim. The fact pinhole makes a difference is a good indicator my limit is optical. Wavefront glasses work better than pinhole. By the way about a third of people cant correct to 20/20, not even with contacts.
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Feb 2006 01:31 GMT Dear Central,
In fact, there is a "school of thought" (i.e., second opinion) that when a child's refractive state is +3 or so (and he is young and "adaptive) the "plus" should be kept off his face, until his eyes "adapt" down to a normal zero to +2 diopters.
On a optical control-system the effect of putting a +3 on a child at +3 diopters, is that his refractive state will not only stay at +3 but will "move positive" -- as was the case for Neil Brooks.
There is no "magic pill" here -- just an honest difference of opinion.
But, "Central" many a truth is said in jest.
Best,
Otis
Mike Tyner - 10 Feb 2006 03:20 GMT > In fact, there is a "school of thought" (i.e., second opinion) that > when a child's refractive state is +3 or so (and he is young > and "adaptive) Be still my heart! Are _you_ admitting they aren't "adaptive" after some age?
The standard deviation of human refractive error DECREASES from birth to a certain age, then it INCREASES again.
What age would that be, Otis?
-MT
Neil Brooks - 10 Feb 2006 03:30 GMT >> In fact, there is a "school of thought" (i.e., second opinion) that >> when a child's refractive state is +3 or so (and he is young [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What age would that be, Otis? What is ... the threshold, Alex?
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Feb 2006 03:16 GMT Dear "Central",
Subject: Adaptive optics -- Adaptive Eye to A lens.
Re: The second opinion on the plus lens.
Looks like you were correct about Neil Brooks. An over-prescribed plus can certainly make a monkey-primate eye "more positive". It is possible that the same "adaptiveness" also occurs for the human-primate eye.
Dr. Allen supports the second-opinion which is to "go slow" about putting a young child in a full-strength plus lens.
You suggestion about stair-case hyperopia is correct.
Best,
Otis
==========================
How to Eliminate Hyperopia
(A HIGH positive refractive state of the fundamental eye.)
by Merrill Allen, OD, PhD, FAAO, FCOVD
PROFESSOR of OPTOMETRY
Indiana University.
Summary: The young eye should be given time to move towards zero diopters refractive state (emmetropiia). A strong plus lens will interfere with the "normalization" process (i.e,, interfere with "emmetropization".) This statement is the "second-opinion" by a highly qualified experts.
Re: When I'm in the mall, I see thick glasses on small children and I have to control myself. I know that wearing those glasses blocks emmetropization. (i.e., blocks the process of normal vision growth. Subsequently, a proven characteristic of the primate eye. OSB) If Mom would put the glasses on the child only in the afternoon, the child would grow out of his/her hyperopia and require several spectacle power reductions. If the child's correction is less than the refractive error, he/she will grow out of the need for those glasses and soon weaker lenses will be needed. Dr. M. Allen
__________________________________
Humans are adaptable. The refractive error distribution in the population of newborns is almost a normal curve. By the first grade the distribution has become leptokurtic with the great majority of the population falling within -0.5 and +2.00 diopters of error. The babies have grown out of their refractive errors!
Graduate Students at Indiana University did a study of babies at 2 weeks of age who performed as well on focusing tests as college students. The one baby who did not was about 5 D hyperopic. After 6 weeks or so it was clearly withdrawn and abnormal in personality. The baby could not respond to the test. Application of +4 D glasses changed the baby's personality overnight! Regarding the overcoming of hyperopia by optometric intervention, the baby above was not followed, but if the baby continued to wear those glasses, now as an adult, he/she will still be +4 hyperopic.
I worked with an 18 month old esotropic girl whose eyes were so crossed I thought she had convergence fixus. However when I held her at arms length and turned my body through 360 degrees her vestibulars took over and her eyes straightened and she showed nystagmus. At each of the three visits I increased the plus to take home. Her eyes straightened with +11D. Then at the age of three years while moving to another city she lost her glasses and went without them for 3 months. The new eye examination showed her Rx to be +4. She had lost 7 diopters in three months!
I did not realize the significance and was not smart enough to say to Mom: "Let's leave the glasses off for another 3 months," or "Let's wear plano glasses with binasal occluders for 3 months." The last checkup of this patient was at age 18 years when she was wearing +4D contact lenses! We cured her of esotropia and reduced 7 diopters of hyperopia! She has of course continued to be straight eyed.
Wild monkeys have low hyperopia or emmetropia and no myopia. Caged monkeys have less hyperopia and much more myopia. Because the evidence for emmetropization is so strong, I suggest a couple of approaches on how to emmetropize young hyperopes.
Only prescribe as much plus as needed to keep the eyes straight. (In the case of our baby that couldn't focus and had personality problems, the plus probably wouldn't be needed for more than a week or two as the child figured out how to use his eyes.
At most the Rx should only be about half of the retinoscopic Rx and then reduced in power as the eyes change. With esotropia, more plus power may be needed at first to establish normal binocular vision, after which treatment of hyperopia may proceed. Alternatively for esotropia, the no Rx, binasal approach, see below, is highly recommended. Use no lens power but provide binasal occluders such as frosty Scotch tape applied with the outer edges placed at the distance apart of the centers of the pupils, minus 4mm.
A growing child will require frequent occluder adjustments as his/her pupillary distance increases. The binasals will straighten crossed or exotropic eyes as well as cause emmetropization. Within 6 months the occluders can be removed. Strabismus and refractive error should be cured in that time! if you or the parents forget, the child will grow out of the binasals [they will cover less and less of the visual field] and will be cured.
We know that older people grow into myopia, so I would not put an upper age on when a person can grow out of hyperopia. The important condition is that they be able to intensively pursue visual tasks requiring accommodation. If they are not visually involved, and if we eliminate the need to emmetropize, they will not emmetropize!
When I'm in the mall, I see thick glasses on small children and I have to control myself. I know that wearing those glasses blocks emmetropization. If Mom would put the glasses on the child only in the afternoon, the child would grow out of his/her hyperopia and require several spectacle power reductions. If the child's correction is less than the refractive error, he/she will grow out of the need for those glasses and soon weaker lenses will be needed.
Quick - 10 Feb 2006 04:37 GMT > When I'm in the mall, I see thick glasses on small > children and I have to control myself. Wow, I was scanning (read the first 3 or 4 words every 10 or 20 lines) and this came accross as
> When I'm in the mall, I see thick glasses on small > chickens and I have to control myself. =Quick
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Feb 2006 04:43 GMT Dear Quck,
That was Dr. Allen's statement. You should read the complete paper to understand what the man was saying -- rather than skimming and not having a clue.
The majority opinion is indeed to put a full-strength plus lens on a child (like Neil). Dr. Allen was suggesting a "go slow" process because the eye is indeed "adaptive", and a full strength "plus" will result in the eye moving in a positive direction.
Allen simply "objected" to that majority-opinion.
Best,
Otis
Mike Tyner - 10 Feb 2006 04:56 GMT > Dr. Allen was > suggesting a "go slow" process because the > eye is indeed "adaptive" Until what age, Otis?
-MT
axxx - 10 Feb 2006 06:44 GMT Glenn
http://www.stronghealth.com/services/strongvision/aboutsv/MacRae.cfm
I have small belief in words if they are said RS surgeon :(
>Interestingly, it was found that when all aberrations were removed and the patient had "pure optics", the patients subjectively complained of poor vision quality. Glenn ,What symptoms rather "poor vision quality" ???
>Apparently human vision is designed to accept and enhance some higher order aberrations. These researches are in an initial stage. Why you present it as " the obvious fact "???
Ace 20/20>20/15>20/10 It is similar: in a computer the graphic editor do " sharpen filter " at processing a photo.
Ace
>I pinhole to a full 20/25 and I can almost see the 20/20 line but its too small because of my minus glasses which minify. Because alot of my aberrations are located on the center, the pinhole cant help me 100%. With tomorrows glasses I may be like 20/15 WITH minification(which would make me a little better than 20/15 in fact) I also got topographies and have already been commented by several about my aberrations and astigmastim. The fact pinhole makes a difference is a good indicator my limit is optical. Wavefront glasses work better than pinhole.............. You can try good RGP lens. Why you cannot come to dr. Leukoma??? I am assured that DR will give you greater discount in the price as you are " the expert of sight " :) You dont have time and money for travel to dr. Leukoma??? Problem-money:( ???
axxx - 10 Feb 2006 07:40 GMT I wish to correct. I have small belief in words if they are said RS surgeon :( And especially in unsubstantiated interpretation Glenn H :)
Neil Brooks - 10 Feb 2006 15:54 GMT >You can try good RGP lens. >Why you cannot come to dr. Leukoma??? >I am assured that DR will give you greater discount in the price as you >are " the expert of sight " :) >You dont have time and money for travel to dr. Leukoma??? >Problem-money:( ??? http://www2.sptimes.com/Treasures/Sounds/007.wav
http://www2.sptimes.com/Treasures/Sounds/001.wav
http://www2.sptimes.com/Treasures/Sounds/002.wav
 Signature Live simply so that others may simply live
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Feb 2006 15:30 GMT Dear Mike,
I think that Professor Allen made this issue quite clear. Or don't you like reading second-opinion statements?
I assume you provide full strength "plus", thus preventing "emmetropization".
Otis
Mike Tyner - 10 Feb 2006 18:33 GMT > I assume you provide full strength "plus", > thus preventing "emmetropization". You assume too much.
-MT
Quick - 10 Feb 2006 05:23 GMT > Dear Quck, > > That was Dr. Allen's statement. How could one tell from your post?
Scott Seidman - 10 Feb 2006 15:32 GMT > That was Dr. Allen's statement. You should read > the complete paper to understand what > the man was saying -- rather than skimming > and not having a clue. Perhaps we could do that if you posted a reference to the paper.
 Signature Scott Reverse name to reply
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Feb 2006 21:22 GMT Scott> Perhaps we could do that if you posted a reference to the paper.
Otis> But of course. You will find it at:
www.i-see.org
under "Library", and then just find Allen's remarks about "hyperopia", and its "prevention".
Best,
Otis
Scott Seidman - 10 Feb 2006 22:27 GMT > Scott> Perhaps we could do that if you posted a reference to the > paper. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Otis No need. I thought you were actually trying to cite a peer-reviewed work-- you know, the kind that count.
 Signature Scott Reverse name to reply
otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Feb 2006 02:49 GMT Scott> No need. I thought you were actually trying to cite a peer-reviewed work-- you know, the kind that count.
Otis> OK, Scott, I got it. A full professor of optometry who expresses a second opinion is an idiot.
Scott -- you are briliant!
Otis
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Feb 2006 03:32 GMT The "late" Dr. Merrill Allen.
================================================================= Professor Emeritus of Optometry Merrill James Allen passed away December 28, 2003 in Bloomington. He had a long and distinguished career on the Indiana University Optometry faculty, joining it when the first professional optometry students were enrolled in 1953 and retiring in 1987. =================================================================
DrG
Mike Tyner - 11 Feb 2006 04:47 GMT > Otis> OK, Scott, I got it. A full professor of optometry who > expresses a second opinion is an idiot. Dr. Allen recognized that emmetropization doesn't continue forever.
You, however...
-MT
Scott Seidman - 13 Feb 2006 13:27 GMT > Otis> OK, Scott, I got it. A full professor of optometry who > expresses a second opinion is an idiot. No, I'm just saying that the unit of scientific discourse is the published paper from a peer-reviewed journal. It's not a perfect standard, but it serves well enough.
 Signature Scott
The Central Scrutinizer - 10 Feb 2006 16:03 GMT >Looks like you were correct about Neil Brooks. Otis, I never said anything about Neil - now, what exactly are you babbling about, uncle Festus?
BD
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 09 Feb 2006 21:04 GMT hyperopia is an eye that failed to fully complete emmetropization. Almost everyone starts out hyperopic in their infancy and early childhood. I went thru emmetropization too far and ended up myopic.
As for adaptive optics, its the ticket for anyone with a number of high order aberrations like me. Conventional glasses cant compenstate for this so I fall a little shy of 20/20 at 20/30. I really wonder what 20/15, or even 20/10 vision looks like! This will also be great for those post-lasik patients who had their aberrations increased and dont see well, especially at night.
Scott Seidman - 09 Feb 2006 18:53 GMT > Scott MacRae, MD at the University of Rochester Medical Center did a > lot of research in adaptive optics as a part of development of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I am not a doctor. Picture the use of such technology to correct post surgical eyes with suture-induced High-order aberrations like trefoil. Almost guaranteed such patients would prefer to get rid of the aberrations.
 Signature Scott Reverse name to reply
Scott Seidman - 10 Feb 2006 14:05 GMT > Interestingly, it was found that when all aberrations were removed and > the patient had "pure optics", the patients subjectively complained of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Executive Director > USAEyes.org Glenn, can you post the reference? Not to argue about the finding about how the eye/brain deals with high-order aberration (which I have no problem with), but I'd like to know whether the aberrations were removed optically at the bench, or with photorefractive surgery. I think some people might be getting the wrong impression.
 Signature Scott Reverse name to reply
Robert Martellaro - 09 Feb 2006 21:20 GMT >Never heard of this before, but it sounds fascinating... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >develop "supervision" for everyone -- including the Department of >Defense This may also be of interest-
http://www.ophthonix.com/
It appears that they are able to produce a lens with a variable index of refraction. This raises some interesting possibilities regarding multifocal lens designs. Might an executive progressive lens with minimal surface astigmatism be right around the corner?
Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr
|
|
|