+- Eyesight Improvement Forum (https://www.iblindness.org/forum)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Complementary Methods (https://www.iblindness.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia (/showthread.php?tid=1463)
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - hammer - 06-02-2011
JMartinC4 Wrote:hammer Wrote:If people use pseudofoveas (peripheral) to much it will result in that the eyes elongate, but then the real foveas will get blurry.Agreed! And again, this is why the best way to do this is gradually over a couple of years. It would be great if David and all of us could determine some general 'stages' of (re)development so people could recognize when progress is being made or when they need to adjust their methods to fit the next phase. As long as this website doesn't get destroyed we should be able to review our posts and look for distinct 'phases' in development. But I've got over 400 to review. And I'm not done yet.
Well, is it then too late to get things normal again >, most probably no, if you start use the real foveas the eyeball would get shortened as a counteract, but mistakes in the healing process is not allowed, there is only one way that restores the eyesight back to normal again, the natural way.
I think the dental braces analogy is still appropriate - with Invisilign, I got a new set (based on a computer model based on a dental impression of my teeth) of aligners to use every 6 weeks or so. Each new set was slightly straighter than the previous set. If we had a way of determining the misalignment of a person's visual system then maybe we could create a computer model based on the Bates Methods and improvements which would show how to use which methods to gradually realign the parts.
Maybe we could use a video analysis like they do in golf - take digital videos of a nearsighted person doing tasks, and then compare/overlay it with someone known to have near-perfect eyesight doing the same tasks. Then it maybe could be broken into an alignment grid for biofeedback training. Or something like that.
I have figured out that Carl Zeiss Vision shares the same kind of thoughts, but applied in a different aspect regarding spectacle lenses, anyway this is all good ;D because thus there is evidence of your ideas as a cause, otherwise they wouldn't have invested that lot of money in those spectacle lenses, now the problem is thus as you say to define the stages of redevelopment, see the spectacle lense article following the link below if you want:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20100420-211324.html">http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Stor ... 11324.html</a><!-- m -->
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 06-03-2011
hammer Wrote:I have figured out that Carl Zeiss Vision shares the same kind of thoughts, but applied in a different aspect regarding spectacle lenses, anyway this is all good ;D because thus there is evidence of your ideas as a cause, otherwise they wouldn't have invested that lot of money in those spectacle lenses, now the problem is thus as you say to define the stages of redevelopment, see the spectacle lense article following the link below if you want:Well, that link doesn't work anymore, so I googled Carl Zeiss - and his website is that of a conventional optician. I didn't see any correlation between his ideas and mine - quite nearly the opposite. If 'spectacle lenses' are designed to physically reshape the eyeball then I disagree completely with them. I believe the nearsighted eyeball is only elongated because the corneal front part is slightly bulged (like a balloon) due to the muscular stresses (and others) which Dr. Bates discovered. So-called myopes ("closed eye" from ancient Greek) have developed a habit of slightly squeezing their ocular orbits.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20100420-211324.html">http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Stor ... 11324.html</a><!-- m -->
The question is: Which came first, the chicken or the ego? Did we start squeezing because we were nearsighted, or are we nearsighted because we started squeezing? I believe the latter. In my case, and probably most nearsighted people my age or older, I started squeezing as soon as I was born and never stopped - thus the clear eyesight of lenses was a revelation to me. In younger myopes most remember having clear eyesight which they lost in school or other stressful periods when they probably started unconsciously squeezing.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 06-03-2011
I just now began to feel the roundness of the fronts of my eyes. I've never had this feeling before and I hope it is taking me to a new phase of permanently clearer eyesight. I was doing computer work, very close to the screen, noticing reflected overhead point sources on the screen, had just found a file I'd been looking for for hours, began a much-deferred Microsoft Update on one of my computers along with a Java update. Thinking about my posts over the last few days, working on various things, thinking about my kids and wife, (did a little texting with her), thinking about a play I was writing and needing help with, planning to share it with my brothers, sisters and mom, while looking at the computer screen and noticing the light reflections, and then it was like my mental attention was sensing the fronts of my eyeballs. It was accompanied by immediately clearer eyesight which I checked against my wall maps. The feeling has faded somewhat now, but not completely, and I sense permanent improvement. It sounds silly. As if I'm making things up. But I'm not. It was then as if I was looking out from the rounded fronts of my eyes rather than from somewhere flat behind them, which is where I realize I ordinarilly look from. Hopefully I will be able to recall and reuse the memory in the future from now on. I think I will. It all fits. All the puzzle pieces fit together.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - hammer - 06-04-2011
JMartinC4 Wrote:I believe the nearsighted eyeball is only elongated because the corneal front part is slightly bulged (like a balloon) due to the muscular stresses (and others) which Dr. Bates discovered.
Ok JMartinC4, it is possible to measure the radius of the cornea.
My corneas are rather flat.
The most interesting is that the radius is exactly the same in both my eyes,
exactly the same, no difference at all, and anyway my right eye is much worse than my left eye, come on and solve this problem for me , please.
This is some evidence to me that the cornea is not affected, in my case at least.
But of course I can be wrong in your case.
What makes you believe that the corneal front part of your eyes bulges ?
Please, let me know this , because I cannot go on without solving this problem.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - Nini - 06-04-2011
If your eyes bulge due to eyestrain, you can follow the example given by E. Lierman and sing "America" to get relaxation:
Quote:He read a few lines of the card, but when he reached the fifty line, he leaned forward in his chair, wrinkled his forehead, and his eyes began to bulge. At that moment a small mirror from my purse came in very handy. I held it before him and the expression of his face changed immediately from strain and tension to a look of amazement. He waited for me to speak, and what I said affected him deeply. He covered his face with his hands and wept. I kept quiet but touched his shoulder lightly to reassure him. When he raised his head a few moments later, he said: "Maybe that is why they refused me. I guess they saw what you saw. No wonder they thought I was crazy."( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iblindness.org/books/stories-from-the-clinic/ch4-eyestrain.php">http://www.iblindness.org/books/stories ... strain.php</a><!-- m --> )
I feared more hysteria, so I said that if he would let me help him, no doubt the IT. S. Army would be glad to admit htm into the service. After his first visit, he left the office, feeling much encouraged. I could not Improve his vision beyond the fifty line that day, and decided not to test each eye separately. All I could record was 10/50 with both eyes.
A week later he came again. Apparently he had forgotten to practice. His vision was still 10/50 with both eyes. I directed him to cover one eye and read the card with the other. His vision with each eye separately was the same, namely, 10/50. He told me that I had encouraged him so much that he tried again to enlist.
I said: "You cannot expect to win out unless you take time to practice. This you must do all day long. When you tire of palming, keep your eyes closed and imagine something perfectly." While I was telling him all this, he had his eyes covered with his hands, and was moving his body from side to side, very slowly. What he did next certainly frighened me. Without removing his hands from his eyes he asked in a loud voice: "Do you mind if I sing 'America* while I am reading the card?"
I answered: "No, but perhaps the other patients might object Just wait a moment and I will ask the doctor."
Dr. Bates said that if singing was his way of relaxing, by all means let him sing. That was all that was necessary. He sang every word without a mistake, and after each verge he would stop long enough to read the card. After the first verse he read two more lines, 10/30. When he finished the hymn, he also finished reading the whole card without a mistake. He blinked his eyes as he moved his body from side to side, and I noticed a great change in the expression of his face. I directed him to sing "America" when he practiced reading the test card at home, every day. He left us In a very happy mood and promised to practice as he was told.
We did not hear from him until a year later when we received a letter from him, written from Bellevue Hospital, but mailed by a friend outside. In his letter he stated that he was all right, although he was confined. He also explained why he was sent there. It seems that when he applied at a recruiting station for enlistment, they found his vision imperfect. When he insisted that if they would only let him sing "America" his vision would at once become normal, the officers of the recruiting station considered this statement so absurd that they believed he must be crazy. He was at once sent to the insane ward of Bellevue, where he was promptly admitted. While there, he wrote a play of three acts, all about the doctors, the nurses, and patients. It was well written, and after he had persuaded some of the doctors to read it, they recommended his discharge.
He called to see us and I found hia vision normal, 10/10. His mental strain was relieved and did not return except temporarily, when he became excited and talked rapidly.
(but watch out, not to be sent to the insane ward .... :o ;D )
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - hammer - 06-04-2011
Nini Wrote:(but watch out, not to be sent to the insane ward .... :o ;D )
When I exercise the looking at details method and think about the way I polished my shoes once in the military service, then I get 20/20 vision. 
Because you need a certain technique in order to polish the shoes in the right way.
It shall be rather rapid fast movements with pauses in between in order to clean the dust away in the most efficient way. It seems to be the same with the eyes.
I am still figuring on why that technique helps out.
Do you happen to know the answer by the way ?
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - Nini - 06-05-2011
hammer Wrote:I am still figuring on why that technique helps out.
Do you happen to know the answer by the way ?
Sorry, I don't know much about shoe-polishing techniques in the military service...
But I get very clear sight when I use an old mechanical coffee grinder looking at the eye-chart...
But back to the topic of the 'pseudo-foveas':
The problem with the 'pseudo-fovea' I noticed in my operated eye - the eyeball is fixed in a deformed position with a buckle, maybe that's the cause.
When I train this eye and try to read unkown letters ( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html">http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html</a><!-- m --> ) in a distance where the letters are not seen clearly and look at the first or second blurry letter, its the last one, which will clear up, not the letter I look at.
It's most difficult for me to see the first letter clearly, because I have to look away from the line...
I tried to correct this as described in Dr Bates book, but didn't have any sucess yet (although I could improve the vision of the eye).
Quote: A patient with vision of 3/200, when she looked at a point a few feet away from the big C, said she saw the letter better than when she looked directly at it. Her attention was called to the fact that her eyes soon became tired and that her vision soon failed when she saw things in this way. Then she was directed to look at a bright object about three feet away from the card, and this attracted her attention to such an extent that she became able to see the large letter on the test card worse, after which she was able to look back at it and see it better. It was demonstrated to her that she could do one of two things: look away and see the letter better than she did before, or look away and see it worse. She then became able to see it worse all the time when she looked three feet away from it. Next she became able to shorten the distance successively to two feet, one foot, and six inches, with a constant improvement in vision; and finally she became able to look at the bottom of the letter and see the top worse, or look at the top and see the bottom worse. With practice she became able to look at the smaller letters in the same way, and finally she became able to read the ten line at twenty feet. By the same method also she became able to read diamond type, first at twelve inches and then at three inches. By these simple measures alone she became able, in short, to see best where she was looking, and her cure was complete.
( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iblindness.org/books/perfect-sight-without-glasses/ch11-central-fixation.php">http://www.iblindness.org/books/perfect ... xation.php</a><!-- m --> )
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - hammer - 06-05-2011
Nini Wrote:But back to the topic of the 'pseudo-foveas':
Actually I don't think that I have any pseudofoveas.
I really see the point best where I look and thus I have just one fovea in each eye.
But, I think due to bad synchronization of the eyes my worse eye is not able to find the fovea, it is not been used properly in stereo mode,
so what should be the fovea in the worse eye is any point in the macula instead that slowly fluctuates around instead without a fixed location.
I just read that birds also have foveas, and some eagles can actually have two or even three foveas in one eye (now we're talking
). So it is not so astonishing if some humans have early development (due to evolution) of some additional fovea, might be pseudo foveas.
It is quite extreme, and of course you don't need such extremly sharp eyes in our society, and thus without natural visual habits it will all fall together into some blurry mess.
By the way I also read that eagles can change their shape of not only their lense but also their corneas.
Humans cannot change the shape of the corneas on the other hand, he he. ;D
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 06-06-2011
hammer Wrote:Assuming you have somehow correctly measured your eyeballs and there is no discernible difference, why would you have markedly worse eyesight in one eye? Of course I don't know everything, but here is my guess: Like most babies born in hospitals you received eye antibiotics within the first hour of your birth. Contemporary medical science (other than psychiatry) has long disregarded, dismissed and downgraded human sensitivity and the human psyche, including that of the newborn. (Just consider how long it's taken them to admit that PTSD is a real condition.) They therefore believe they can do practically anything they want to a newborn and if there is no evidence of physical harm then what they did was at least benign. They are wrong. All the evidence I have found suggests that at a minimum the human visual system is a unified whole at birth, ready to develop normal eyesight. Human beings should never develop an overwhelming dominance of one eye over the other, and especially never the worse eye over the better! It makes no sense. Why and how would it happen? NeoNatal Eye Antibiotics is a good starting point for investigation.JMartinC4 Wrote:I believe the nearsighted eyeball is only elongated because the corneal front part is slightly bulged (like a balloon) due to the muscular stresses (and others) which Dr. Bates discovered.Ok JMartinC4, it is possible to measure the radius of the cornea. My corneas are rather flat. The most interesting is that the radius is exactly the same in both my eyes, exactly the same, no difference at all, and anyway my right eye is much worse than my left eye, come on and solve this problem for me , please. This is some evidence to me that the cornea is not affected, in my case at least. But of course I can be wrong in your case. What makes you believe that the corneal front part of your eyes bulges ? Please, let me know this , because I cannot go on without solving this problem.
Why do I think the front part of the eye is bulged? A close reading of the references provided by others on this forum made clear that in the 'elongated' eye, it is the front part which is 'elongated' causing the light rays to focus in front of the retina. (Again, it's common sense - if the back was 'elongated' it would affect the retina and produce very very bad visual impairment.) They say 'elongated' - I say 'bulged'. Like a water-and-gel-filled balloon. They say 'tomahto', I say 'tomato'. Let's call the whole thing off.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 06-06-2011
hammer Wrote:Let's think about this. Light enters the eye. It falls upon the retina in general. The lens is supposed to point/focus back to the fovea the light from the exact/small object/area of interest which is capable of being seen distinctly. Supposing that the mind does not know where the foveas are for some reason, or that the elongated/bulging cornea distorts the angle of incoming light forcing it onto some other nearby retinal point which the mind attends to by mistake or necessity. Isn't that a 'pseudofovea'?Nini Wrote:But back to the topic of the 'pseudo-foveas':Actually I don't think that I have any pseudofoveas. I really see the point best where I look and thus I have just one fovea in each eye. But, I think due to bad synchronization of the eyes my worse eye is not able to find the fovea, it is not been used properly in stereo mode, so what should be the fovea in the worse eye is any point in the macula instead that slowly fluctuates around instead without a fixed location.I just read that birds also have foveas, and some eagles can actually have two or even three foveas in one eye (now we're talking
A flash of clear eyesight indicates the existence of functional fovea(s).
Continuous blur in a person known to have experienced clear flashes indicates (to me) a person using pseudofoveas - perhaps even a pseudofoveal ring around the foveas?! Let's use facts, trial and error, common sense, and logic to defeat magical thinking, myths, distortions and untruths.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 06-06-2011
Nini Wrote:Dr. Bates described his 'method' of rubbing his index fingernail against his thumbnail as a way of improving/maintaining clear eyesight. It probably has to do with distracting/occupying the part of the mind/visual system which wants to dominate and throw everything out of alignment.hammer Wrote:I am still figuring on why that technique helps out.Sorry, I don't know much about shoe-polishing techniques in the military service...
Do you happen to know the answer by the way ?
But I get very clear sight when I use an old mechanical coffee grinder looking at the eye-chart...
( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.iblindness.org/books/perfect-sight-without-glasses/ch11-central-fixation.php">http://www.iblindness.org/books/perfect ... xation.php</a><!-- m --> )
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - hammer - 06-07-2011
JMartinC4 Wrote:Let's think about this. Light enters the eye. It falls upon the retina in general. The lens is supposed to point/focus back to the fovea the light from the exact/small object/area of interest which is capable of being seen distinctly. Supposing that the mind does not know where the foveas are for some reason, or that the elongated/bulging cornea distorts the angle of incoming light forcing it onto some other nearby retinal point which the mind attends to by mistake or necessity. Isn't that a 'pseudofovea'?
A flash of clear eyesight indicates the existence of functional fovea(s).
Continuous blur in a person known to have experienced clear flashes indicates (to me) a person using pseudofoveas - perhaps even a pseudofoveal ring around the foveas?! Let's use facts, trial and error, common sense, and logic to defeat magical thinking, myths, distortions and untruths.
You see it from the minds perspective, really clever actually.
Now, how do the mind know the location/direction of the eyes.
Well, the mind uses the fovea information in each eye to align the eyes.
Now, what if one eye is worse.
Then the mind still tries two align the eyes, but the result becomes quite inaccurate since there were this blur.
Ok, then the mind says I failed to align the foveas, what shall I do ???
. Then the mind says I have to widen the fovea such that I also get information from the macula,
what the heck if the reference is wrong then I can change the reference, nemas problemas.
Then finally the mind says, ok, the eyes are aligned, but there is unfortunately a slight error that we must still try to reduce with adaptive regulation methods, but that might unfortunately take quite a long time to settle because mechanical biological stuff must change.
Then the Bates practitioner says, that is out of question, I want result now, I cannot wait. >
Oh, why are you so stressed the mind says, ok, then we cannot shorten the back of the eyeball.
Instead we have to do some shortening of the front, but the result will be not that good, I mean there is a risk of instability.
Then the Bates practitioner say, that is no problem, I need results FAST NOW, so I can at least get some flash of clarity. ;D
Excuse me it was my 200th post, just wrote something.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 06-09-2011
When identical twins are born, one of them has to be born first. That one is almost always slightly dominant.
When a normal baby is born normally, neither eye is dominant, just as neither hand is dominant.
In the first hour after a baby is born in a US hospital one of its eyes gets treated with an ointment first and then some seconds later the other eye gets treated. A baby is very sensitive. Some babies seem to be more or less sensitive than others. The eye treatments supposedly wear off after 20 minutes or so. 20 minutes of 1 hour plus 20 minutes = 1/4 of the baby's life. 5 seconds of 20 minutes = a 2 percent difference in timing.
Psychology and psychiatry profess that the mind remembers everything - either consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously - and unconscious unresolved memories can affect behavior and thought processes in abnormal ways.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - hammer - 06-10-2011
JMartinC4,
Did you know about the vestibulo-ocular reflex ?! See this link:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex</a><!-- m -->
I know you are intrested in rotation and such things, might be interesting.
I had an ear infection the other day and I had balance problems and I also had problems to focus on a point. I think it is due to the ear infection. But, then I immediately of course thought about the ear and eye correlation.
I think actually that if there is a virus on the balance nerve the eyesight can be affected such that one eye gets more dominant, not much affected, but it is at least enough to disturb the balance (and dominance) such that one eye in the long run becomes worse than the other eye.
I should not be astonished if the other way around can happen also.
That is, if a newborn gets neonatal eye drops then the balance system gets affected, but it was just a little thought. I think though that the balance system is involved in some way.
Re: Working Towards A Neonatal Blur Theory Of Common Myopia - JMartinC4 - 06-20-2011
hammer Wrote:JMartinC4, Did you know about the vestibulo-ocular reflex ?! See this link:Thanks hammer, this was relevant and helpful. And I think it has helped me move into what would seem to be a near-final phase of normal eyesight (re)development. This phase involves matching the foveal input/images Right-to-Left and Left-to-Right depending on initial orientation and aligned rotational/gyroscopic movement. What I am doing now is first locating a visible object/area in my slighlty more-dominant better (right) eye macula/fovea and then a slight shift along the aligned pathway to match it up in the less-dominant worse eye (left) macula/fovea, and then back again (across the optic chiasm?) to unify the images, resulting in an increasingly clearer and sharper image. It is remarkable. Also, it does not have to always start from the better eye (as you or pikachu or danifixe or someone pointed out, there is a lateral eye dominance effect when looking sideways - sometimes the left (worse) eye does have to take the lead). Finding and staying on the correctly aligned elevated pathway is critical - otherwise my mind prefers blur. And as soon as the pathway is deviated from with either eye, the blur returns. Holding onto the pathway with both eyes is tough, but it is where normal eyesight exists.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibulo-ocular_reflex</a><!-- m --> I know you are intrested in rotation and such things, might be interesting. I had an ear infection the other day and I had balance problems and I also had problems to focus on a point. I think it is due to the ear infection. But, then I immediately of course thought about the ear and eye correlation. I think actually that if there is a virus on the balance nerve the eyesight can be affected such that one eye gets more dominant, not much affected, but it is at least enough to disturb the balance (and dominance) such that one eye in the long run becomes worse than the other eye. I should not be astonished if the other way around can happen also. That is, if a newborn gets neonatal eye drops then the balance system gets affected, but it was just a little thought. I think though that the balance system is involved in some way.