 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 20061 diopter difference
How significant is it if someone has a 1 diopter difference between their eyes. Example - if I have -1.75 (L) and -2.75(R) can I go without glasses ever, will I find it too blurry or will the better eye compensate? What would the strongest prescription be with a -1 difference when you could avoid wearing glasses all the time? you have mild natural monovision. Many people go with more than this difference with monovision, although one eye is usually plano or very mildly myopic and the other is more myopic to be focused at near. You will find that you dont need glasses for reading and computer among other things. How often you want to wear glasses is up to you. You will see with the better eye so youll experience -1.75 of blur which is a fairly small blur. >you have mild natural monovision. Many people go with more than this >difference with monovision, although one eye is usually plano or very >mildly myopic and the other is more myopic to be focused at near. Ace, Kindly square your definition with this explanation from St. Luke's Eye Center, contrasting "monovision" with anisotropia, antimetropia, or anisometropia, for example: "With monovision, the dominant eye (the eye you would use to focus a camera) is focused for distance vision, and the non-dominant eye is focused for near to intermediate vision." Thanks in advance, Neil well one of his eyes sees well for intermediate and the other for near(er) both eyes are a little blurry in the distance but with both eyes open, he sees a -1.75 diopter blur. many people have one eye a little worse than the other >well one of his eyes sees well for intermediate and the other for >near(er) both eyes are a little blurry in the distance but with both >eyes open, he sees a -1.75 diopter blur. many people have one eye a >little worse than the other So ... not really monovision, per se. Realistically, more like you just injecting yourself wherever you can, regardless of whether or not you have any real information. Thanks for clearing that up, Ace. Neil > How significant is it if someone has a 1 diopter difference between their > eyes. Depends what you mean by significant, but if you want the clearest and most comfortable vision for seeing fine detail close up or at a further distance, then a 1 dioptre difference is significant. If your visual needs are not very exacting then perhaps it's not so significant. Example - if I have -1.75 (L) and -2.75(R) can I go without glasses > ever, will I find it too blurry or will the better eye compensate? You could go without glasses for reading close up - you'll be able to see it clearly enough but after a while you may begin to experience a bit of eye strain. Distance vision would certainly be blurry without glasses. A very few people with this refraction would go without glasses altogether, saying they "can see OK", but they would be the least discerning members of society and should stay away from vehicles etc! What > would the strongest prescription be with a -1 difference when you could avoid > wearing glasses all the time? There's no standard answer to that question - it depends on the individual and the circumstances. Dom > > How significant is it if someone has a 1 diopter difference between their > > eyes. ... Example - if I have -1.75 (L) and -2.75(R) can I go without > > glasses ever, will I find it too blurry or will the better eye compensate? ... > [ ... ] > >What would the strongest prescription be with a -1 difference when you > > could avoid wearing glasses all the time? > There's no standard answer to that question - it depends on the > individual and the circumstances. It's sad that there cannot be more specific answers from professionals. But maybe you like an unprofessional answer. Well, here goes. Almost anybody should be able to get a pair of eyeglasses that correct his distant vision to 20/20 or better. For all but presbyopes (old folks), those glasses should serve for reading, and, reading, your eyes should be more comfortable with those eyeglasses than without them. There exists, however, some suspicion that reading through distance eyeglasses may make myopes more myopic. There's also a possibility that reading with refractively unbalanced eyes (like 1.0D difference between the scripts for the two eyes), as well as causing discomfort, may contribute to myopia progression. So, if you are squeamish about using your distance eyeglasses for reading, you might consider reading glasses that simply balanced your eyes with +1.0 for the most myopic eye (& plano for the other). It could cost as little as $19 plus S&H or whatever to try that (google $19 eyeglasses). With those eyeglasses, you should see your book at 1/1.75 meters, ~22.5 inches, without any accommodative effort, as well as without any eyestrain of imbalance. Remember, however, that this is an unprofessional conjecture. If you try it, let me know how it works out for you. (I would try it, except that I have already ruined my eyeballs and have needed to have them rebuilt with silicone). (Well, if I did it for my own eyes, assuming virgin eyes, I would also consider base-out prisms to fool my eyes completely into thinking they were seeing the book at virtual infinity. But the $19-eyeglass people do not do prisms, and most people, including eye-care professionals, cannot remember enough trigonometry to specify the needed prism strength.) -- Dicky > It's sad that there cannot be more specific answers from professionals. But > maybe you like an unprofessional answer. Well, here goes. Almost anybody > should be able to get a pair of eyeglasses that correct his distant vision to > 20/20 or better. For all but presbyopes (old folks), those glasses should > serve for reading, and, reading, your eyes should be more comfortable with > those eyeglasses than without them. Just because a question has normal syntax doesn't mean that it makes sense. Not all questions have a scientific answer. DrG "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com> wrote in news:WSyTf.10578$bu.4471 @trnddc04: > It's sad that there cannot be more specific answers from professionals. Yeah, just too bad that a Sunday night post can't generate discussion before 9:30 on a Sunday morning. Perhaps the professionals could consider posting their AIM addresses, or even better, their home phone numbers, just in case someone desperately needs an answer to a question in the middle of the night.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com> wrote in news:WSyTf.10578$bu.4471 > @trnddc04: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > numbers, just in case someone desperately needs an answer to a > question in the middle of the night. Oops, "before 9:30 on a **Monday** morning" is, of course, what I meant to say. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > > "Dick Adams" <bad.addr@nonexist.com> wrote in news:WSyTf.10578$bu.4471 > > @trnddc04: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oops, "before 9:30 on a **Monday** morning" is, of course, what I meant to > say. Frequently they stay almost sober during most of the working week. But they do tend to go to pieces on weekends. : ) -- Dicky > It's sad that there cannot be more specific > answers from professionals. But maybe you > like an unprofessional answer ... > If you try it, let me know how it works out for you. > (I would try it, except that I have already ruined > my eyeballs ... Now there's a compelling testimonial. -Quick > Almost anybody > should be able to get a pair of eyeglasses that correct his distant > vision to 20/20 or better. For all but presbyopes (old folks), > those glasses should serve for reading, and, reading, your eyes > should be more comfortable with those eyeglasses than without them. I don't see why all myopes should be _more_ comfortable reading with glasses. > There exists, however, some suspicion that reading through distance > eyeglasses may make myopes more myopic. There also exists some suspicion that the earth is still flat. Reading without glasses doesn't make hyperopes more myopic. Wish it did. -MT > I don't see why all myopes should be _more_ comfortable reading with > glasses. OK, exclude myopes with similar refractive error for two eyes, of the order of -2.0D, exclusively spherical, and no uncommon problems like vergence-. Those folks have God-given reading eyes. > Reading without glasses doesn't make hyperopes more myopic. Wish it did. How could you be sure that it does not make them less hyperopic? -- Dicky > > I don't see why all myopes should be _more_ comfortable reading with > > glasses. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How could you be sure that it does not make them less hyperopic? We're back to the basic difference between axial length and accommodative spasm here. It may create a ciliary spasm that doesn't 'naturally' release, but I'm not aware of any evidence that it has a cumulative effect on axial length. Are you? > MT> Reading without glasses doesn't make hyperopes > more myopic. Wish it did. > How could you be sure that it does not make them less hyperopic? Um, aside from 20 years of refracting them? There's physiology - high measured levels of tonic accommodation do not predict myopia. Human eyes don't respond significantly to lenses after age 6, perhaps earlier. Then there's epidemiology. Uncorrected hyperopes are no more likely to shift myopic than emmetropes or corrected hyperopes. Then, most people get more hyperopic (even myopes) in their 30s and 40s, just when hyperopia begins to matter more and more. -MT > ... high measured levels of tonic accommodation do not predict myopia ... Can you help me out on this one, Mike? Could I picture tonic accommodation as a point on a line between unaccommodated and fully accommodated? Could I presume that the units along the line are diopters? I could understand then that a hyperopic eye might benefit from tonically accommodating so as to focus distant objects, as the unaccommodated focus would be beyond infinity, thus useless. I could picture tonic accommodation as automatic return to infinity focus. To some kind of a "stop" in the accommodative range. But consider a myope needing, say, -2.0D. He's got no hope to get a sharp focus of a distant object. I was a myope, and I never had any awareness of any intermediate stops in my focal range (which extended from uselessly close to not very distant). Maybe this is about so-called pseudomyopia. That is something I never noticed, either. If there were such a thing, it seems to me that Bates would be right, as well as Otis and Ace and some silly others. I must say that I can't understand at all what may be, as you put it, a "high level of tonic accommodation". Does that have to do with young children who are still hyperopic and have extensive ranges of accommodation? How would you describe a "high level of tonic accommodation" using simple words and numbers, maybe even a diagram? > Uncorrected hyperopes are no more likely to shift myopic than emmetropes > or corrected hyperopes. If that is about kids, then one must wonder about what hope there may be for emmotropization. > Then, most people get more hyperopic (even myopes) in their 30s and 40s, > just when hyperopia begins to matter more and more. That's 'cause our eyeballs shrink up it bit. I know about that. Then, later, our lenses get fatter and we get more myopic. But I am mostly interested to learn about the "high measured levels of tonic accommodation" which "do not predict myopia". Thanks. -- Dicky > Can you help me out on this one, Mike? Could I picture tonic > accommodation as a point on a line between unaccommodated > and fully accommodated? Yes. > Maybe this is about so-called pseudomyopia. That is something > I never noticed, either. If there were such a thing, it seems to me > that Bates would be right, as well as Otis and Ace and some silly others. There is such a thing, and Bates and Otis and Ace all have experience "curing" it. > I must say that I can't understand at all what may be, as you put it, a > "high level of tonic accommodation". Does that have to do with young > children who are still hyperopic and have extensive ranges of > accommodation? Many myopes do it too, counterproductively. > How would you describe a "high level of tonic accommodation" using > simple words and numbers, maybe even a diagram? Without cycloplegia, a hyperopic kid undergoes refraction and stops the examiner at +2.00 D. +2.50 is blurry. With cycloplegia, the same kid chooses a refraction of +5.00. That indicates "tonic accommodation" of three diopters. Without cycloplegia, a myopic kid refracts at -2.00 D. With cycloplegia, the same kid refracts at -1.50 D. That indicates a half-diopter of tonic accommodation. >> Uncorrected hyperopes are no more likely to shift myopic than emmetropes >> or corrected hyperopes. > > If that is about kids, then one must wonder about what hope there may be > for > emmotropization. How long do you think emmetropization lasts? In humans, the standard deviation of refractive errors decreases until about age 1 or 2, then it increases again. >> Then, most people get more hyperopic (even myopes) in their >> 30s and 40s, just when hyperopia begins to matter more and more. > That's 'cause our eyeballs shrink up it bit. I know about that. I didn't know eyeballs shrink. > Then, later, our lenses get fatter and we get more myopic. I didn't know lenses got fatter. I thought nuclear sclerosis caused a change in refractive index. > But I am mostly interested to learn about the "high measured > levels of tonic accommodation" which "do not predict myopia". Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Vol 40, 1050-1060, Copyright © 1999 by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Tonic accommodation, age, and refractive error in children K Zadnik, DO Mutti, HS Kim, LA Jones, PH Qiu and ML Moeschberger College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210-1240, USA. PURPOSE: An association between tonic accommodation, the resting accommodative position of the eye in the absence of a visually compelling stimulus, and refractive error has been reported in adults and children. In general, myopes have the lowest (or least myopic) levels of tonic accommodation. The purpose in assessing tonic accommodation was to evaluate it as a predictor of onset of myopia. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to document an association between age and tonic accommodation. The known association between tonic accommodation and refractive error was confirmed and it was shown that an ocular component, Gullstrand lens power, also contributed to the tonic accommodation level. There does not seem to be an increased risk of onset of juvenile myopia associated with tonic accommodation. -MT > > That's 'cause our eyeballs shrink up it bit. I know about that. > > I didn't know eyeballs shrink. That's what they told me. > > Then, later, our lenses get fatter and we get more myopic. > > I didn't know lenses got fatter. I thought nuclear sclerosis caused a change > in refractive index. Nope! They said the lenses fatten on account of cataracts. Those were the same ones who told me that my eyes were myopic on account of being too long. And that they got too long on account of being myopic. > Tonic accommodation, age, and refractive error in children > K Zadnik, DO Mutti, HS Kim, LA Jones, PH Qiu and ML Moeschberger [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > accommodation level. There does not seem to be an increased risk of onset of > juvenile myopia associated with tonic accommodation. Maybe that's where we learn that tonic accommodation does not cause myopia? Well, I'll have to kick that around before I get back to you. (I'll need first to find out who Gullstrand is, and what he does with his lens power.) Thank you for your response. -- Dicky Dear Dicky, Subject: The natural eye in a four-year college -- Annapolis and West Point. Mike> Reading without glasses doesn't make hyperopes more myopic. How could you be sure that it does not make them less hyperopic? Otis> It is called "office" wishful thinking. Otis> At Annapolis, (Hayden) the entering students had a positive refractive state (objective measurement.) Otis> Duiring the four years, the students with a refractive state when down to about -1 diopters. Otis> The students with a refractive state when from +1/2 diopter to -1/2 dioper AS A NATURAL PROCESS". Otis> And the lucky students who entered with a refractive state of +1.0 diopters when down to zero diopters. Otis> But those are the objective facts where the actually keep records. Since Mike denys these facts, let us just call scientific facts the "second-opnioni" and the majority opinion is a Mike states it.. Otis> Let me not contest Mike's statement. We apparently have different standards for judging the dynamic behavior of the fundamental primate eye. Draw your own conclusions my friend. Best, Otis Dicky >the dynamic behavior of the fundamental >primate eye. This is just a shot in the dark - but I'm guessing that the only one evaluating primate eyes is you; everyone else here seems oddly preoccupied with human eyes. Go figure. Dear "Central", Subject: The effect of the minus on the eye's refraction Otis> the dynamic behavior of the fundamental primate eye. Central> This is just a shot in the dark - but I'm guessing that the only one evaluating primate eyes is you; everyone else here seems oddly preoccupied with human eyes. Go figure. Otis> Yes, you are very "right", honestly. I have been very curious about this type of "pure science" issue, where you ask that type of quesion -- and seek an objective, repetable quantitive answer. Otis> I was (in essense) just curious about your thinking about that specific issue (ignoning the emotional response.) I do agree that scientific facts can never be reduced to dealing with the average "man in the street", and I respect that. Otis> Further, if I were doing the work of Mike, Jan, DrG -- I would do EXACTLY what they are doing, because -- except for the threshold -- nothing else works but the minus -- in 15 minutes. Otis> So enjoy our pleasant sojourn of analysis and thoughtful review of these scientific (not medical) issues. Best, Otis >Dear "Central", > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >and thoughtful review of these scientific (not >medical) issues. More gingko biloba, Uncle Otie ... or something. I think your, uh, decay is accelerating.... >> Otis> Yes, you are very "right", honestly. I have been >> very curious about this type of "pure science" issue, >> where you ask that type of quesion -- and seek an >> objective, repetable quantitive answer. >> Otis> I was (in essense) just curious about your >> thinking about that specific issue (ignoning the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > More gingko biloba, Uncle Otie ... or something. I think > your, uh, decay is accelerating.... Wow, Otis has upped the bar. This is totally incoherent. How are we supposed to do a parody on that if we can't even guess what he was trying to say? -Quick Dear Neil, Hop on your mountain bike and "bounce" down those mountain trails. It my help you "improve" your thinking. I certainly enjoy getting out on on my bike -- and getting away from these "issues" for some time. Best, Otis >Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I certainly enjoy getting out on on my bike -- and >getting away from these "issues" for some time. I heartily recommend that you begin wearing a helmet on these rides, Uncle Otie. Something in the jarring and the falls has left you ... well ... just a tad ... off. > Otis> But those are the objective facts where the > actually keep records. Since Mike denys these > facts, let us just call scientific facts the "second-opnioni" > and the majority opinion is a Mike states it.. I don't think you understand. Farsighted people do get nearsighted. But not more than others who aren't farsighted. -MT I have a -0.5 diopter difference. At far does that mean my worse eye compensates? Or isn't it that simple? >> Otis> But those are the objective facts where the >> actually keep records. Since Mike denys these [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >-MT |
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.