 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2006You can be 20/20 or even 20/15 and still very slightly myopic just shy of plano!
The below is someone's experience with Intacs(but anything that undercorrects will achieve the same end result be it glasses, lasik, orthoK, intacs) Hi Molly, First of all, a 'plano', or zero refraction is not required to have 20/20 or better vision. For example, I am about -0.50 in my left eye, and see 20/15 with it. My comments: Such a small residual myopia undercorrection does not have much affect on UCVA. No one with a -.25 undercorrection will lose a line and this is comming from an optometrist's experience. -.5 diopters typically costs just one line so instead of 20/15 you may be 20/20 which is still considered perfect vision and nothing should be done but enjoy your crisp vision! I have tested my UCVA with my older glasses and found almost no difference with a slight undercorrection. But a slight undercorrection can help keep you out of readers without really making an impact on distance vision so its great! For this reason, an undercorrection with orthoK will pratically eliminate my dependency on glasses, period except maybe for driving. > The below is someone's experience with Intacs(but anything that > undercorrects will achieve the same end result be it glasses, lasik, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > orthoK will pratically eliminate my dependency on glasses, period > except maybe for driving. Ace, You already have negative credibility. Do you have any concept of what this propensity (you AND elevator boy) to post third hand, anecdotal information on a sci. NG makes you look like? Fool. Ace schreef: > The below is someone's experience with Intacs(but anything that > undercorrects will achieve the same end result be it glasses, lasik, > orthoK, intacs) Shut up Ace. Real eyecare specialists here are tired of reading your unverifiable anecdotal messages. It is NOT informative for the layman and professionals are getting bored You have no knowledge in this field other then reading what you have found with google, things people with interest on these issues can find themselves. When those people have questions after surfing on the internet they are more than welcome to put a question on what they didn't understand. And you Ace , are not in the position to answer on these questions because you have not the quality. Please be aware of the fact this newsgroup is originally meant for people working in the eyecare field. For once without my usual blablabla about your shortsightedness. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) I can do without your rudeness. You make a bad impression on others. The fact remains that -1d or less of myopia does not make a significent difference in distance vision and that you can be 20/20 and it does not neccessarily mean you are dead on plano. I hope you learn this fact now. > I can do without your rudeness. You make a bad impression on others. > The fact remains that -1d or less of myopia does not make a significent > difference in distance vision and that you can be 20/20 and it does not > neccessarily mean you are dead on plano. I hope you learn this fact now. This is a corollary to the fact that you can have better than 20/20 when you are "dead-on plano." I think it came up in the context of some kind of lens I have never heard of perhaps not providing exact neutralization. "Don't worry about it: you still might be 20/20."  SignatureRobert T. Kopp http://analytic.tripod.com/ Dear Ace, The refractive STATES are measured with a retinoscope, and supporting technique. It is possible, under this circumstance to have 20/20 vision, and a negative refractive STATE. This is what Professor Young had to say about this issue: +++++++++++++++++++++++ Title: "Visual Acuity and Refractive Errors in Primates" Francis Young, Primate Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington Reprinted from the Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, APA 1969 Extracts: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Subject: Visual Acuity and measured Refractive STATES. It is possible to have 20/20 and a refractive STATE of -1/2 diopters -- as per this discussion. (Refractive STATE measured with a retinoscope and supporting technique.) "... Animals less than 12 of age with refractive errors* between 2.00 and -0.5 diopters, normal retina and no obvious visual difficulties are likely to have 20/20 acuity at near and far at better than the 5% level of confidence. Of some 26 rhesus monkeys within this range of refractive errors* all had 20/15 or 20/20 visual acuity. Animals with refractive errors* greater than 2.00 diopters may have 20/20 acuity at far but not at near. Animals with refractive errors* which are more minus than -0.5 diopters will not have 20/20 acuity at far but may have it at near." %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% * Errors The term "error" comes from traditional practice, where all refractive STATES that were not exactly zero -- were called "errors". This implies something about these monkeys that is simply not true. That their eyes were "defective" in some manner. In fact, Dr. Young states that (with good retinas and no medical problems) eyes with refractive STATES in the range of -1/2 diopter to +2 diopters have excellent vision. The term "error", while traditional, leads to false ideas about the visual acuity of primates in the wild. In fact the distribution of refractive STATES of wild monkeys have an average of about 0.7 diopters, with a standard deviation of +0.7 diopters. With the knowledge that you can have 20/20 and a refractive STATE of -1/2 diopters, and further 20/20 with a refractive STATE of +2.5 diopters, it means that, in the wild, about 98 percent of the primates had excellent vision. This is also true of the Eskimos -- who could not read, and had no written language. Best, Otis ========= > > I can do without your rudeness. You make a bad impression on others. > > The fact remains that -1d or less of myopia does not make a significent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lens I have never heard of perhaps not providing exact neutralization. > "Don't worry about it: you still might be 20/20." > > I can do without your rudeness. You make a bad impression on others. > > The fact remains that -1d or less of myopia does not make a significent [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Robert T. Kopp > http://analytic.tripod.com/ Most people that are 20/20 with a slight myopia would be 20/15 or even better corrected, not that they ever need correction anyway. But they are lucky because that slight myopia will give them much better near vision, reduce their dependency on readers and yet they still see perfect 20/20 distance! In fact their quality of vision at all distances is better because of better than average optics and possibility even the retina is better(higher resolution, more rods/cones) having the best BCVA capability is very important for many reasons! Dear Ace, There are two separate issues here. 1. The refractive STATES of the young, and in this case "wild" primates where their life depends on monitoring distanct objects -- that can kill time. and 2. The situation that develops beyond the age of about 40, where the RANGE of accommodation (stop-to-stop) graducally becomes less, so that a person who has a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter will begin to see slight blur at near. Thus the term presbyopia, or "old" sight. And you are correct, there is some advantage to a SLIGHT negative STATE over the age of 40, as there is an advantage to a slight difference in refractive STATES between the eyes (natural monovision -- say 1 diopter difference). If you have BOTH of these "situations", (assuming you pass the DMV), then you will be able to see both far and near (moderately) into your 60s, with no need for a lens. Best, Otis > > > I can do without your rudeness. You make a bad impression on others. > > > The fact remains that -1d or less of myopia does not make a significent [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > rods/cones) having the best BCVA capability is very important for many > reasons! > Dear Ace, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Otis A slight negetive refractive state is better than any positive refractive state in older people. What you want to do is save a +.5 to +1 "buffer" which you will lose in college and end up between plano and -1.5. This isnt bad enough to need glasses but will help keep you out of reading glasses till well into old age. A positive refractive state of up to +3 is fine for young children and for college students aged around 20, youll want your positive state to be around a +1 then after college you dont want any positive state because this will become a big problem in a few years when presbyopia takes hold. First your near vision goes then your distance vision goes. Dear Ace, Subject: Natural Refractive STATES In the young (Rhesus-primates) the refractive states run from -0.7 diopters to +2.1 diopters (96 percent of the population. Obviously the natural refractive STATE (in the open) is +0.7 diopters. This is a very valuable situation for a child. >From a review of C. Wildsoet's picture (animated), the refractive STATE of the natural eye will change with the applied minus lens. (The plus response is slightly different). Therefore, if one wished to keep his refractive STATE in a normal range, it would be necessary to begin refractive-STATE modification BEFORE THE SNELLEN GOES BELOW 20/40. With refractive STATES from zero to +1.5 diopters -- the young will have 20/20 vision (with no medical problem with the retina). In any event, you can check this yourself with your own Snellen. So the real issue it to understand this normal distribution for the fundamental eye -- kept in the "open". By "wise" understanding, and confirming your refractive STATE with Snellen and trial-lens kit, you could begin the preventive process at zero diopters, and SLOWLY move your refractive state towards the natural (and desired) refractive state between +0.7 to +1.0 diopters. Once you reach that refractive STATE, you could quit using the plus -- and monitor your refractive STATE until it SLOWLY moved towards zero diopters. But this "iterative" process -- you could keep your refractive STATE in this normal range -- and avoid the development of any NEGATIVE refractive STATE. Just one man's opinion. Best, Otis > > Dear Ace, > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > problem in a few years when presbyopia takes hold. First your near > vision goes then your distance vision goes. >>From a review of C. Wildsoet's picture (animated), > the refractive STATE of the natural eye will change > with the applied minus lens. Of course, age doesn't matter. > you could begin the preventive process at zero diopters, > and SLOWLY move your refractive state towards > the natural (and desired) refractive state between > +0.7 to +1.0 diopters. Because plus lenses always cause the refractive state to change. Because Otis said so. -MT Ace schreef: > I can do without your rudeness. Sure, but it don't stop On second thought, if you shut up and stop copy and past stuff from the internet ,it will. Don't stop Jan, I like someone who says it like it is. Now take Cletis for example. He likes posting the same bad reports time after time, thinking that if we see something for the 500th time we will finally believe him. Unfortunately he hasn't the intellegence to realize we all know he is demented. dr grant > Don't stop Jan, I like someone who says it like it is. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > dr grant It's funny how the retard won't take the hint that people know how foolish he sounds, but it's even better how Otis seems obsessed with chimps. To each their own I guess. |
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
|
©2009 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.