More Eye Stuff
You know what's weird? Going through the last decade thinking that you were seeing stuff and then learning that you really weren't.
It sounds strange, but for a very long time my glasses perscription was never right. The long story is that I believe there is an eyewear conspiracy. That Optometrists are in cahoots with eyewear/lens companies because the Optometrists never tell you that there is such a thing as Vision Therapy (exercises you can do to strengthen your eye muscles therefore reducing your dependancy on perscription lenses and ultimately frames).
Lots of people pshaw vision therapy, especially your eye doctor, and claim that there isn't any clinical proof that vision therapy is effective. That said, I used to do vision therapy. While working at Harvard I had the opportunity to meet Antonia Orfield who was offering VT at their University Health Services. I saw her once a week for about a year and in that time I was able to reduce my perscription twice because my eyesight improved! A requirement, though, is to always wear a perscription that is less than you need in order to make the eyes work harder. Sounds kinda weird but the idea is to not help your eyes along with a stronger perscription because your eyes will rely on it and get lazy. VT ain't cheap and most of the eye exercises you can do on your own at home. With me, I needed to be accountable to someone and I was really lazy, so going once a week to the doctor kept me on track, and luckily, the fee was reduced because I was a Harvard employee.
Then I moved here. There is only one certified vision therapist in all of the Bay area and he charged $100 a visit. I started to see him and then it just got too much. Then I stopped doing the exercises at home and my eyes gradually went back to what they were. I was reluctant to increase my perscription because of my conspiracy theory belief and because I didn't want to be fully dependant on my glasses. I didn't start wearing glasses until I was 22 and then I only needed them for distance. I could manage around my house without them and I didn't own a car so did not have to worry about seeing while driving. As I got older, I needed my glasses more and more until I was wearing them all the time.
Wearing glasses just got to be such a hassle! I never wanted to wear contacts because they freak me out. And by the end of the day my glasses felt like 5 tons of bricks on my face. Hahaha. VT works, but its very time consuming and takes a while to see results and you probalby have to do it the rest of your life. That is why I opted for Lasik. Ironincally, I now think there is a VT conspiracy among Lasik doctors. When I was shopping around one of them vehemently denied that VT actually works. Well of course he does because it effects his job...jerk. (I didn't get my surgery done by him).
So, that was my uber long story to explain why, even though I wore glasses, that I still had a hard time seeing. But now, wow! I can see so far into the distance that its amazing. On my dirve to work this morning I saw so many things that I had never seen before. Like the San Mateo bridge! There is that point on 280 when you are zooming past SFO that the bay and bridge are visible. It was so beautiful with the sun glistening off the water. Here's something else amazing. I never realized how much I was missing. I have been continually surprised when I SEE people's faces in their cars. Or on the street! That sounds so stupid, but before I could never see their faces clearly and I never knew it. In fact, I thought I could see my own face clearly but the other day while I was blowdrying my hair in the mirror I was shocked at how clear it was.
Here's my philosophical moment. As I was driving to work and seeing all this stuff for the first time off in the distance, I wondered how often I had only been seeing things in my 6 foot radius and not seeing the full picture (so to speak) of it all. Dr. Orfield told me that over time people tend to focus on this small distance in front of them in their lives. Especially when walking or driving. Just seeing what you need to see but not seeing everything. It made me kind of melancholy and a little anxious. I have all this stuff I need to see now and I here I was, driving to a job that I'm not really happy in, where I am going to be cooped up all day in a cube. Just the thought of that, doing something because I need to and not because I want to really got me down, but at the same time, I feel so hopeful about how I might approach the future.
And you know I can't resist the opportunity to tie classic rock into this, I was listening to Boston on the way in and realilzed that I just love them so much. That, yet again, I am really hearing the music and lyrics for the first time (like I did with Triumph) with new ears and hearing that this band is all about the positive word and how, when growing up, I never really understood that. That while loving Boston may make me ultra-cheesy, I don't really care because to me, I love what makes me happy and singing at the top of my lungs and blasting out air guitar solos in my car does just that.
6 Comments:
hahhaa. you're awesome. xoxo
Boston rules. An unpopular opinion? They came from outer space to rock us.
I admit it I like Boston too. espicially when I'm cruising down the freeway... haha
Hez,
You're testimony is inspiring, I'm glad vision therapy worked for you.
I don't doubt that you're prescription changed for the better, because why would you make it up? I do, however, doubt the claims of vision therapists who tout they can help you get rid of glasses with eye excercises. I am an optometrist and I can tell you there is no consiracy with lens companies to sell glasses.
First of all, show me the clinical research to validate the claims of these vision therapists.
Second, vision therapy has been around for nearly 100 years. Do you really think glasses would still be necessary if V.T. (vision therapy) worked? Why is LASIK so popular? Why would millions of people risk eye surgery with the non-surgical, less expensive alternative of V.T.?
I ordered the "See Cleary" Method of vision correction myself. It didn't work, and their company couldn't offer me clinical evidence of effectiveness, only personal testimonies like yours.
I'm happy to hear stories like yours in which the V.T. seemed to help, but more studies and evidence need to be brought forward to prove these claims. The scientific method requires repeatable results, not just the claims of a few people who happened upon good results.
By the way, V.T. is a very viable science when used in the right way. V.T. can help children with "lazy eye", eye muscle imbalances, focusing problems, etc. but has not been shown effective for anyone over the age of 9 or so in most cases.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but the facts is the facts!
Sincerely,
Dr. Ken Jeffers
Hez,
Way to stick it to me on my blog! Good job!
Where's your reply here?
My comments were meant to provoke discussion, not anger. Sorry if I offended you.
Dr. Jeffers
I discovered your blog when I was searching for additional articles on Dr. Antonia Orfield.
I miss not wearing contact lens as I did for 12 years up until about 14 years ago.
Since then I have been wearing a series of progressive lenses that have frequently been a source of aggrevation and even major disability when unknowingly the lenses made it virtually impossible to work or make a living.
I THOUGHT THE PROBLEM WAS ME AND NOT MY GLASSES AND PRESCRIPTION.
I since have new lenses and a new doctor, but vision disability still crops up. I am hoping to start Vision Therapy next week with another Optometrist and thank you for your encouragement.
The following is based upon my personal "experiences" in wearing progressive lenses for the last 14 years. It has taken me that long to be able to quantify how badly made and fitted some of those glasses have been.
Your observations and criticism of my comments would be very greatly appreciated in validating my analysis, and possibly having my
experience be of help to others.
--------------------------------------------
A Method for Verifying the Alignment of Progressive Lenses
One of the virtues of progressive lenses is that the wearer is able to "see clearly" and adjust the focal point for viewing an object by merely changing the horizontal viewing angle to match the magnification necessary for clear vision. This essentially gives the wearer the advantages of bi-focal glasses "without the (bifocal) line" with a seemingly continuous range of viewing magnification.
Unfortunately, this frequently means reduced peripheral vision, because the focal point for both eyes is essentially a range in narrow vertical area in front of each eye. While adjustment to progressive lenses is usually easy, it requires the wearer to move their head horizontally to face the object being viewed, and then raise or lower their head to bring the object into focus. Complications occur, however, if the lens is too far forward or too close to the eye (usually caused by misaligned nose pads), or tilted too far forward or backward (usually caused by a skewed frame), or if the vertical visual areas are not aligned with the focal point of the eyes (usually caused by an inaccurate positioning of the lenses).
Vertical misalignment is difficult to verify since it is barely noticeable and usually subjective, but it can be a major source of discomfort and dissatisfaction with progressive lenses since only the dominant eye focuses on the object and causes the recessive eye to sense a "double vision." While not exactly painful, the resulting discomfort is mentally exhausting, irritating, and inhibits reading and reading coherence. Most Optometrists and patients assume that if the visual areas are close enough to the alignment of the eyes, the muscles of the eye will make an adjustment. Instead, in many cases the lack of accurate close vision is NOT noticed but is instead mistaken for decreased "mental function" by the wearer since most daily functions do NOT require precise visual coherence. The lens misalignment also obviates accuracy of the Optometrist's or Ophthalmologist's prescription.
While a competent Optician can easily and properly adjust the problem by precisely adjusting the lenses, the diagnosis and verification of visual accuracy is normally subjective. Accuracy of close vision can be determined by looking at a point about 2 feet away with the recessive eye covered, covering the dominant eye, and then un-covering the recessive eye. The need to move the head either left or right to bring the point into focus indicates that the progressive visual area is NOT in alignment. The necessary lens adjustment, however, can be quantified by the use of two different water-soluble thin-tipped colored felt markers and a digital display device such as a digital clock viewed in a somewhat darkened room.
The adjustment measurement nvolves using a focal point (a digital clock or a point on computer screen) at distances of 2, 4, 8, and 16 feet away alternately covering the recessive eye and the dominant eye, and then viewing the focal point with both eyes. With the recessive eye covered, the wearer uses a thin colored marker to put a dot on the front of the dominant lens to match the visual focus point. The wearer then covers the dominant eye, uncovers the recessive eye, and uses the
same marker to put an "identical" dot on the front of the recessive lens matching the visual focus point. The wearer then views the same focal point at each successive viewing distance with BOTH eyes uncovered and uses a DIFFERENT colored marker to place a dot on BOTH lenses WITHOUT MOVING THE HEAD to matches (cover) the focal point. The space between the two differently colored dots on the recessive lens at each viewing distance is the measurement of the vertical focal area's displacement of the lenses for that viewing distance and quantifies the lens' vertical misalignment. Accurate alignment should have both colored dots match at the same point and same viewing distances for both lenses.
This test is simple, inexpensive, fast, and an objective way of measuring the visual accuracy of progressive lens alignment.
(There is a graphic of the lens and the colored marks on them resulting from the trials, but I do not know how to include it in this post.)
Essentially the graphic looks like:
o = lens allignment points
, = 1st colored dot (comma) with both eyes open (left eye dominant)
. = 2nd colored dot (period) other eye covered and head NOT moved
| = outside of lenses
---------------------left lens---------------------right lens
-----------|---------------------------------------------------------|
-----------|---------------------------------------------------------|
16 feet---|-------------,.----------------------,.------------------|
12 '-------|--o---------,.---o---bridge---o----,-.-----------o----|
--8 '------|-----------,.--------------------------,--.--------------|
--4 '------|----------,.-----------------------------,---.-----------|
--2 '------|---------,.--------------------------------,----.--------|
-----------|---------------------------------------------------------|
-----------|---------------------------------------------------------|
This attempt at a "graphic" may not be "to scale." The space between the two differently colored dots (comma versus period above) on the recessive right lens at each viewing distance is the measurement of the vertical focal area's displacement of the lenses for that viewing distance and quantifies the lens' vertical misalignment.
Post a Comment
<< Home