I have studied Bates techniques for some time now, and I have been using some of them, and I have seen some improvements. My main problem with my vision is that I see better with the eccentric parts of my eye, and much worse in the center. I thus have a quite serious degree of what is called eccentric fixation. This is very disturbing, since I can see the top letter of the Snellen card quite distinct if I just look around it, but if I look straight at it, it becomes blurry. It gets worse in bright and dark conditions, but is present all the time. The only time it doesn't bother me is in a good lighting, not too dark or bright, at a close range. At long range it is always present, and also present at close range in darkness and brightness.
In the chapter "Central Fixation" of Bates' book, he describes two women who seem to have almost the exact same problem as I do, they see worse where they are looking. Bates describes how he cured them using techniques that include looking at lights. My question is thus if someone has used these techniques? I am afraid I am doing them wrong, since Bates doesn't go into detail how they should be done. Should I start from my best point (close range), and then move the object I am looking at further away and try to maintain the central fixation? If someone has some tips, I would be glad to hear them, otherwise I'll just have to continue experimenting with what Bates mentioned.
Mart Wrote:Hi everyone, I have studied Bates techniques for some time now, and I have been using some of them, and I have seen some improvements. My main problem with my vision is that I see better with the eccentric parts of my eye, and much worse in the center. I thus have a quite serious degree of what is called eccentric fixation. This is very disturbing, since I can see the top letter of the Snellen card quite distinct if I just look around it, but if I look straight at it, it becomes blurry. It gets worse in bright and dark conditions, but is present all the time. The only time it doesn't bother me is in a good lighting, not too dark or bright, at a close range. At long range it is always present, and also present at close range in darkness and brightness.
In the chapter "Central Fixation" of Bates' book, he describes two women who seem to have almost the exact same problem as I do, they see worse where they are looking. Bates describes how he cured them using techniques that include looking at lights. My question is thus if someone has used these techniques? I am afraid I am doing them wrong, since Bates doesn't go into detail how they should be done. Should I start from my best point (close range), and then move the object I am looking at further away and try to maintain the central fixation? If someone has some tips, I would be glad to hear them, otherwise I'll just have to continue experimenting with what Bates mentioned. Regards, Martin
In my opinion, the brain/mind somehow knows that it receives visual information from the center of the retinas (it has to combine input from both eyes) because the center is where the optic nerves connect to the retinas.
By nature though, that center spot is blind - a blindspot where there are no rods or cones. (I think the normal sighted brain/mind doesn't pay attention to that blindspot, but I think the myopic brain/mind does. Or maybe it's vice-versa - research needs to be done.)
So, in the normal sighted the two eyes point together and at the same time at visible locations by means of the centerpoints which are blind, because that is how physical spheres work in nature. If you compare billiards, the pool balls have to be struck in the center in order to travel on a straight line to where the poolcue is pointing them.
So, the eyeballs point at a target via the blindspots; but to see most clearly the brain/mind has to attend only to the visual input coming from two spots temporally next to the centerspots - the foveas.
So, when you say you can't see from the center, you are absolutely right - no one can. We have to see from slightly outside of center, where the foveas are located.
Sorry if this seems tangential to your questions, but it's something I've been thinking about lately, and your post helped me get it down in writing. Thanks.
Thanks for you answer, but I am certain my problem is not normal. It's not just a tiny spot in the centre that is blurry, it is an area that covers the top letter of the Snellen card from about 4 feet. And after I have palmed a while, and my eyes relax, the problem disappears for a few moments and I can see the Snellen card much better. Bates also saw this problem in some of his patients, since he was able to help two women with this condition.
Relevant paragraph from his book:
Quote:Most patients can readily look at the bottom of the big C and see the top worse; but in some cases it is not only impossible for them to do this, but impossible for them to let go of the large letters at any distance at which they can be seen. In these extreme cases it sometimes requires considerable ingenuity, first to demonstrate to the patient that he does not see best where he is looking, and then to help him to see an object worse when he looks away from it than when he looks directly at it. The use of a strong light as one of the points of fixation, or of two lights five or ten feet apart, has been found helpful, the patient when he looks away from the light being able to see it less bright more readily than he can see a black letter worse when he looks away from it. It then becomes easier for him to see the letter worse when he looks away from it. This method was successful in the following case:
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.
The highest degrees of eccentric fixation occur in the high degrees of myopia, and in these cases, since the sight is best at the near-point, the patient is benefited by practicing seeing worse at this point. The distance can then be gradually extended until it becomes possible to do the same thing at twenty feet. One patient with a high degree of myopia said that the farther she looked away from an electric light the better she saw it, but by alternately looking at the light at the near-point and looking away from it she became able, in a short time, to see it brighter when she looked directly at it than when she looked away from it. Later she became able to do the same thing at twenty feet, and then she experienced a wonderful feeling of relief. No words, she said, could adequately describe it. Every nerve seemed to be relaxed, and a feeling of comfort and rest permeated her whole body. Afterward her progress was rapid. She soon became able to look at one part of the smallest letters on the card and see the rest worse, and then she became able to read the letters at twenty feet.
C4, in my opinion, this time you're completely lost.
Mart, I wish I could help you. I have the same problem, but it's a lot worse. I remember that somewhere Bates said something like "the patient somehow learned how to make the distance [to the better sight] shorter". I guess that even Bates didn't know exactly how this works, but he did it anyway.
michael_burnoute Wrote:C4, in my opinion, this time you're completely lost.
Mart, I wish I could help you. I have the same problem, but it's a lot worse. I remember that somewhere Bates said something like "the patient somehow learned how to make the distance [to the better sight] shorter". I guess that even Bates didn't know exactly how this works, but he did it anyway.
At least I'm not a 'burnout'!
Plus, my eyesight is improving based on my insights.
Plus, my insights correlate nicely with Dr. Bates'.
Plus, I have played billiards.
Plus, I have studied physics and other sciences.
Lost? No, my friend, I am found.
O0
I'll try to clear up some questions that have been raised about the center of vision and some exercizes you can use to help you get central fixation.
There is no question about the eye physiology concerning the attachment point of the optic nerve and the region of best sight.
The attachment of the optic nerve is NOT in the center of the back of the eye (sorry JMartinC4!). The optic nerve is connected off center; therefore, the blind spot is off-center and filled in with binocular (two eye) vision.
The macula and fovea centralis is at the center of where images form on the retina on the back of your eye. The fovea centralis has the HIGHEST concentration of cones. Therefore, we should see best through the center of vision in normal light for the simple reason that it is where the highest resolution is possible. Get any modern eye physiology book or look at a picture here (scroll down):
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.visionsofjoy.org/SeeBetter.htm">http://www.visionsofjoy.org/SeeBetter.htm</a><!-- m -->
One exception is in low light, because rods are more important (the fovea centralis is only cones). Since rods are activated in low light and located in the periphery, peripheral vision becomes more clear than the center of vision in very low light.
BUT we are talking about the center of vision in normal lighting, so the center of vision should be clearest.
now that we have that out of the way...
I can give you a few tips, as I had this problem when I first started. Start by demonstrating easy things, at a comfortable
distance. Don't worry about 'smaller' and 'further away' yet. In fact, as you might have noticed from what Sean and David have also written recently, it's easiest to demonstrate any of Bates's methods under the best conditions possible, or only slightly out of your range.
In the example you quoted from Dr. Bates, a bright light is used to draw her attention from the letter C and thereby see it worse when she looks away from it. You could do something similar, using anything of interest to the side of your chart.
Here is another thing you can do. Stand by a wall and put your hand on the wall at shoulder height. look at your hand and notice what you can see. Now, look at the floor. While looking at the floor, make an observation: Is your hand less distinct now than when you were looking directly at it? That is a demonstration of central fixation.
Once you understand that concept, you are ready to practice this with the chart. First start very general. Look at the left side of the C. Now, look to the far side of the room. You are looking at something else in the room, but in your peripheral vision, can you demonstrate that the left side of the C is now seen less clearly? If so, look again at the C. Again, observe that now you can see it better than when you were looking across the room. Now look again to the other side of the room, but closer to the chart. Again, demonstrate. You are looking at something else, but is the left side of the C less distinct now? Keep doing this until you can finally look from the left side of the C to the edge of the chart and see it worse. Eventually then you will be able to accomplish what you originally wanted to: to look at the bottom of the C and see the top worse than the bottom, and to look at the top of the C and see the bottom worse.
Notice how I wrote that. It is also possible to write that you look at the top of the C and see the top better than the bottom and vice versa. But this wording sometimes causes people to stare, because they stop noticing the periphery. I hope that helps!
sorrisi, I understand how your excersise is to be peformed, but what I don't understand is the part of "demonstrating that it is seen worse". The thing is, as you know, that if I look at the far side of the room the C becomes clearer. My problem is thus that I don't understand how to demostrate that I actually see it worse. Should I try to mentally see it worse than I do, or consciously strain my eyes (as Dr. Bates said could be beneficial). So my confusion lies in how I can demomnstrate something as worse, when I actually do see it better. I'm sorry if you did explain it, or if my question is unclear, I just need some extra clearance on that issue.
Mart, is your problem that you cannot move far enough from the letter so it would actually start to look dimmer? In my case the further away I look the blacker it appears. So I cannot go over the point when it would start to appear dimmer, because the point of maximum blackness is on the edge of the visual field.
michael_burnoute Wrote:Mart, is your problem that you cannot move far enough from the letter so it would actually start to look dimmer? In my case the further away I look the blacker it appears. So I cannot go over the point when it would start to appear dimmer, because the point of maximum blackness is on the edge of the visual field.
Yes, it appears to like that for me as well. That is why I have problems with demonstrating it as worse. Although when I see as far from the letter as I can, I can't make out the figure of it, I can just see it as a black spot. But it still appears blacker in the corner of my eye than from the front.
Mart Wrote:Yes, it appears to like that for me too. Although when I see as far from the letter as I can, I can't make out the figure of it, I can just see it as a black spot. But it still appears blacker in the corner of my eye than from the front.
Okay, the same here. At first I didn't realize what it meant to "see better", because I also couldn't make out what the letter was. I tried it with the 200 ft letter (an E) and I saw the color get more intense when I looked further away from it. Then I understood.
As for the practising, I thought that because I couldn't look far away enough from the letter to make it worse, I decided not to worry about it and hoped that it gets fixed when I improve by other methods. But at the near point I have managed to improve the center of vision. I did it a couple of times I guess, but I haven't continued doing it. I did it by looking at small text on my phone and I just thought that the text regarded looks better. I mean, not imagining it, only thought saying it. The second I thought that, the text area about half an inch in diameter became blacker.
Mart Wrote:Yes, it appears to like that for me too. Although when I see as far from the letter as I can, I can't make out the figure of it, I can just see it as a black spot. But it still appears blacker in the corner of my eye than from the front.
Okay, the same here. At first I didn't realize what it meant to "see better", because I also couldn't make out what the letter was. I tried it with the 200 ft letter (an E) and I saw the color get more intense when I looked further away from it. Then I understood.
As for the practising, I thought that because I couldn't look far away enough from the letter to make it worse, I decided not to worry about it and hoped that it gets fixed when I improve by other methods. But at the near point I have managed to improve the center of vision. I did it a couple of times I guess, but I haven't continued doing it. I did it by looking at small text on my phone and I just thought that the text regarded looks better. I mean, not imagining it, only thought saying it. The second I thought that, the text area about half an inch in diameter became blacker.
Okay, so you just thought "This letter is clearer"? I'll try that, since I'm always worried about straining when I want to see something better, but this might be a way to avoid that.
Recently I have done alot of palming and sunning, and I think the dimness in my center has actually lowered somewhat. It's still there, but it might be going away. In the mornings and after I have palmed, it's goes away even more temporarily. In the mornings I sometimes feel as I have knife-sharp vision (Far from it in reality, but it feels like it compared to what I normally have), but it only lasts for some minutes. That said, I never experiened such clear vision in the mornings until just some weeks ago.
sorrisiblue Wrote:Hi Mart, I'll try to clear up some questions that have been raised about the center of vision and some exercizes you can use to help you get central fixation. There is no question about the eye physiology concerning the attachment point of the optic nerve and the region of best sight. The attachment of the optic nerve is NOT in the center of the back of the eye (sorry JMartinC4!). The optic nerve is connected off center; therefore, the blind spot is off-center and filled in with binocular (two eye) vision. The macula and fovea centralis is at the center of where images form on the retina on the back of your eye. The fovea centralis has the HIGHEST concentration of cones. Therefore, we should see best through the center of vision in normal light for the simple reason that it is where the highest resolution is possible. Get any modern eye physiology book or look at a picture here (scroll down):
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.visionsofjoy.org/SeeBetter.htm">http://www.visionsofjoy.org/SeeBetter.htm</a><!-- m -->
One exception is in low light, because rods are more important (the fovea centralis is only cones). Since rods are activated in low light and located in the periphery, peripheral vision becomes more clear than the center of vision in very low light. ...best, Sorrisi
Sorry, Sorrisi, but you are wrong, as usual:
from a simple search:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea</a><!-- m -->
The fovea comprises less than 1% of retinal size but takes up over 50% of the visual cortex in the brain. [8] The foveal pit is not located exactly on the optical axis, but is displaced about 4 to 8 degrees temporal to it. The fovea sees only the central two degrees of the visual field, which is roughly equivalent to twice the width of your thumbnail at arm's length.[9]
Mart Wrote:Okay, so you just thought "This letter is clearer"? I'll try that, since I'm always worried about straining when I want to see something better, but this might be a way to avoid that.
Recently I have done alot of palming and sunning, and I think the dimness in my center has actually lowered somewhat. It's still there, but it might be going away. In the mornings and after I have palmed, it's goes away even more temporarily. In the mornings I sometimes feel as I have knife-sharp vision (Far from it in reality, but it feels like it compared to what I normally have), but it only lasts for some minutes. That said, I never experiened such clear vision in the mornings until just some weeks ago.
It seems that we have much in common. I've been experiencing the better "morning-sight" for a few months now.
About the "seeing better" thing, at first I tried to do every trick I could think of, seeing better, seeing worse. None of them worked (I'm not saying it's impossible, I just couldn't do it). I think it was after three months time from first attempts when I thought that "This is not probably going to work, but I wonder what it would look like if an area of text appeared darker right now." And it did. You can only imagine how amazed I was.
I believe the above has something in common with a phenomenon in fusion. If you fuse two images of the same shape, other being black and other being white with a black outline, you can decide the color of the fused image by just saying "black, white, black..." Have you demonstrated that?
Mart Wrote:Okay, so you just thought "This letter is clearer"? I'll try that, since I'm always worried about straining when I want to see something better, but this might be a way to avoid that.
Recently I have done alot of palming and sunning, and I think the dimness in my center has actually lowered somewhat. It's still there, but it might be going away. In the mornings and after I have palmed, it's goes away even more temporarily. In the mornings I sometimes feel as I have knife-sharp vision (Far from it in reality, but it feels like it compared to what I normally have), but it only lasts for some minutes. That said, I never experiened such clear vision in the mornings until just some weeks ago.
It seems that we have much in common. I've been experiencing the better "morning-sight" for a few months now.
About the "seeing better" thing, at first I tried to do every trick I could think of, seeing better, seeing worse. None of them worked (I'm not saying it's impossible, I just couldn't do it). I think it was after three months time from first attempts when I thought that "This is not probably going to work, but I wonder what it would look like if an area of text appeared darker right now." And it did. You can only imagine how amazed I was.
I believe the above has something in common with a phenomenon in fusion. If you fuse two images of the same shape, other being black and other being white with a black outline, you can decide the color of the fused image by just saying "black, white, black..." Have you demonstrated that?
No I haven't tried that, but it sounds interesting. Can this demonstration be done with a picture on the computer monitor, or does one need some special image that has been fused by hand?
Mart Wrote:No I haven't tried that, but it sounds interesting. Can this demonstration be done with a picture on the computer monitor, or does one need some special image that has been fused by hand?
Well, it sure is interesting, but I have no idea if it's of any help. I did it on paper, but I guess it doesn't matter if it's on computer screen. I have a pdf file of simple images for fusion. I could send it to you if you like. It's nothing very special, though. I guess you could draw a couple of rectangles and paint one of them black.'
