Subject: It is always good to read reviews of Bates work by professionals.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf">http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20Ap ... Vision.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Don't mistake it for a scientific study of the Bates method, this article mainly discusses temporary clear flashes of vision in myopes. It doesn't review the Bates method either - there is a short and incorrect list of the methods he used and no one who successfully used the method was studied.
Coming from an optometrist, however, the article is surprisingly balanced on the topic of the Bates method. It's unfortunate that the results discussed only studied people who have short term clear flashes of vision and don't experience permanent improvement. The research could be repeated on the numerous people that over a period of months manage to improve their visual accuity _and_ reduce their error of refraction significantly with the Bates method. But at least this is a scientific study of temporary clear flashes of vision. All references to central fixation, the key to the Bates method, show that the optometrists quoted have completely misunderstood it. They seem to think that central fixation is synonymous with flashing. There is no mention of the true definition of central fixation - seeing best where you are looking and seeing everything else worse.
The first thing the author does is discard the cases where lensless eyes have accommodated. The mechanism of accommodation isn't commented on for these cases, they are simply discarded because they are rare. This was Dr. Bates's main point of criticism of modern optometry, and this article doesn't disappoint - it is yet another example of optometry ignoring these pesky cases that don't conform to their rules. There are also multiple quotes from optometrists who concede that many of their customers are never aided properly with glasses. Duke-Elder: 'Every ophthalmologist equally knows that his consulting room has long been haunted by people whom they have not helped at all'.
It's interesting as well that they use large print, as if in defiance?
Instead of looking at people who only have flashes of improved vision, why didn't they study people who have permanently improved sight? No mention is made of the possibility that with practice, this improved vision becomes a permanent state, the thesis of Dr. Bates's book. It would have been interesting if such rigourous research studied subjects before and after a year of practicing the Bates method. Then, instead of studying the 'flash' of improved vision, they could have determined if the permanent improvement found could be explained by a change in the refraction. I've read dozens of reports from people posting on this forum that they have had their prescriptions reduced as a result of the Bates method.
It's interesting that in the flashing research, the optometrist directed people to relax or use other methods (and directed them not to strain to squint) to improve their sight. However, for the people that could improve their accuity, the author emphasizes that it was done with effort. Why did they conclude that effort was used to improve the sight when, in fact, they were directed to relax?
In the end, the author's conclusion is that Dr. Bates may have been wrong about his theory about the shape of the eye changing, however, they conclude that with training, the method is useful for improving visual accuity. In fact, since no one was studied before and after experiencing permanent improvement with the Bates method, this article cannot comment on whether Dr. Bates was right or not. Remember, this is a study of clear flashes, not of the Bates method. The summary concludes that the clear flashes of vision are probably brought on by means of a mental improvement to the perceived image and an improvement in organizing the information that comes in to the eye. However, this interesting conclusion is later shortened in the summary to the more negative term 'blur interpretation'. Instead of asking whether the normal eye has a superior mental ability to perceive an image, the idea is discarded as a mental trick.
Quote:The summary concludes that the clear flashes of vision are probably brought on by means of a mental improvement to the perceived image and an improvement in organizing the information that comes in to the eye.
It seems strange that they would miss the obvious point that during a clear flash the eye movements become much shorter and quicker. Actually, the eye and brain work in concert together to create a clear image, it is not just about the brain interpreting a blurry image.
I think that optometrists are really stupid to talk of blur interpretation when a person with 10/50 can see in a clear flash 10/10 or better. Do they have checked the size of those letters on a snellen chart recently?
Alexandre
