Saccadic eye movements, also known as rapid eye movements (REMs), work this way:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~fabri/saccadic/yarbus.html">http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~fabri/saccadic/yarbus.html</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.imageandnarrative.be/issue08/img/vdbYarbusEyemovements.jpg">http://www.imageandnarrative.be/issue08 ... ements.jpg</a><!-- m -->
While looking for the above two links, I came across this experiment which seems to fall in place with what I was saying about relativity earlier:
But relativity is not what this particular topic is about. Many of you know that Bates talked about Lord Macaulay's ability to read books with unparalleled speed and comprehension, as well as Macaulay's ability to remember entire books verbatim. This was pinpointed to having to do with saccadic eye movements in BEM: Oct. 1926--Vol. XI, No. 4 [typos on this page, not due to Dr. Bates]
Lord Macaulay was able to read 500 words a second and remember everything perfectly, including where certain misspelled words would be, such as on what page and line. Bates said in order for Lord Macaulay to be able to read so fast by unconsciously following the principle of central fixation, Lord Macaulay would have to be able to recognize a letter by seeing each side of the letter best. That would be four sides. The average number of letters in a word would be five letters. So by calculating those factors together, Dr. Bates came up with 4 x 5 x 500 = 10,000 shifts per second. This is about how fast Lord Macaulay's saccadic vibrations would be per second to read 500 words.
Then I thought of how central fixation could affect saccadic eye movements. First, I began by thinking of eccentric fixation (trying to see all things at once) as if it were a rubber band stretched from one point to another. Central fixation is in the middle of the rubber band, and peripheral vision to the sides. Then I put my finger on the middle of the rubber band and pulled it further and further, so that the focus is put more on the smaller detail (center) and the peripheral field is ignored more. It begins to look like this shape ^ [I'm not saying this has anything to do with size/depth of field, but that it has to do with distribution of where our primary attention really is.]
In BEM: April 1926--Vol. X, No. 10, "Memory", Bates writes:
Quote:Another teacher, living in Chicago, found it an advantage to teach the children how to remember. This was accomplished in some cases by having the children remember their own signatures at first, as well as they could. They improved their memory by alternately looking at their signature and then closing their eyes while remembering it. The children were able to demonstrate that it was easier for them to remember one word of their signature than three or more words. They also found that they could remember one letter of their signature better than the whole word. By practice, they became able to remember a part of a letter better than the whole letter, and the smaller the part remembered, the more perfectly it was accomplished. Many of them became able to remember a small period perfectly black, as well with their eyes open as they could with their eyes closed.
If you visualize yourself doing what the children did, trying to remember three words of a signature at once, then one word, then one letter, then one part of a letter, it becomes even easier to understand why remembering a small detail is much easier than remembering a large detail.
I was able to draw a correlation from this example of central fixation to saccadic eye movements. The more central fixation is improved, the more the mind will start paying more attention to the central field than the peripheral field. But at the same time, a countermeasure takes place: the rate of saccadic vibrations will increase to notice more details at once across the field of vision.
As the visual acuity becomes narrowed down to such a degree that the smallest of details can be easily observed, the mind is able to say more quickly: "I've seen enough. Let's move on." In other words: the quicker the mind can recognize a detail, the sooner the attention can move on. This equals quicker saccadic movements.
Just as visual acuity may have no limits due to central fixation, neither may saccadic vibrations.
Central fixation is obviously very important to achieving quicker saccadic movements.
I have done LOTS of research on speed reading in the past.
Regarding Lord Macaulay: 30,000 wpm is impressive.
I myself was able to accomplish 1500 wpm with ~85% comprehension using a method I'll term "1". Using a second method (method "2"), and a bit more controversial technique I read 45000wpm (No Joke) - that is a 400-page book in <10 minutes. However, someone was able to read at 450,000 wpm with using the same #2 technique that I used. It involves reading pages at once (read further, this technique is 100% centralization) Unfortunately I had no time to continue this "hobby" so I stopped. My plan was to achieve 56,000 wpm with 60% comprehension, but I was simply immersed in school work.
The first technique (#1) is more common. It is done in two ways:
1a. You try to see the whole line at once. I met a person who used this method. He had HUGE THICK Coke-bottle glasses....I wonder why... ;D (Hint: no central fixation) The idea of this method is that you diffuse and see the whole line at once and move your gaze down the center of the page. Unfortunately it ruins your eyes as well. Also, this technique is never taught...it's rather acquired.
1b. You try to see the whole line at near-once. This technique involves extremely rapid eye movements, and requires a lot of practice. Some people can read 3 lines at once, as they shift on 3 different words as they move left--> right. It is obvious that if you read 3 lines at once, the reading material will not make any sense. This is true, but if you read it fast enough you can develop a different way of processing text in your mind.
Here is a very big hint that's a DIRECT proof to Spock's idea: Try to read something, but don't look at the center of the word and try to see it all at once; rather skim the top of all the words. In other words centralize on the very top of the words and move your eyesight towards the right side of the page, as you normally would when reading. You will notice (or should notice) that your eyes spontaneously glide on top of the words, and you can read much smoother, faster and easier. This is a direct result of increased rate of eye movements through central fixation.
I would like to encourage all of you to read this way because it reduces eyestrain, increases reading speed, and discourages regression. Please do not regress back if you misread a word. There is a very important reason why languages LEFT to RIGHT (has to do with the polarity of the hemispheres in your brain). Rather finish reading the sentence/paragraph and read the part you didn't understand again. When one reads the your eyes adapt a rough shifting pattern. The patterning increases until you regress. Reading right to left is very bad for the eyes and force your shifting rate to reverse and break the thought stream. This causes significant visual and metal strain as well as headaches and frustration.
When you teach your children to read DO NOT tell them "stop! read that word one more time, correctly!" this is the worst thing you can do to your child's eyes as well as reading speed, comprehension, and overall development because this is not how your mind was meant to work. Your mind should always maintain a thought stream, even if you misread a word. You should attempt to hold the thought stream by resuming reading! Chances are you will figure out what that word was, or if you don't, read that part again when you finish reading the paragraph or sentence.
I do not know how Lord Macaulay was able to achieve 3,000 words, but a lot of people agree that the maximum rate you can consciously process is 2000 wpm (note this limit isn't your eyes, this limit is the WAY you process visual information). Either he is a very unique person, or he used some of the #2 method that I mentioned.
2: I will not go into detail, it took me many months of research and practice to get an ounce of success. I found that the information on this method is quite secluded. Nonetheless, giving you details on this method will result in a post much longer than this one. ;D
Basically it involves the use of peripheral vision, as well as a completely different and counterintuitive method of visual processing. This technique involves relaxation and ignoring your eyes ("letting go of your eyes"), and the use of peripheral vision, as well as extremely rapid eye movements accomplished ONLY through relaxation. It is important to mention that PERIPHERAL vision is used, not diffused vision. In order to have good peripheral vision, you must learn to centralize and exercise central fixation.
Some people in the modern word believe that the eyes set the limit for how fast you can read. Some individuals believe that your mind sets this limit. Both are wrong!! This #2 method is incredible, in that it illustrates that neither have a limit on receiving and processing visual information.
Note: it is not until now that I realize everything I learned from all my research in visual input and processing is parallel to the teachings of Dr. Bates. The idea of my research in speed reading isn't so I can read fast...I read very fast before I started my research. I noticed that something allowed individuals to surpass any processivity limits of the human mind.
something I forgot to mention, and didn't want to clutter up my old post:
In my post I stressed the importance of processing visual information. Just as Lord Macaulay, reading 500 words in one second or reading 3 lines at once makes no sense as the sentences that enter your mind are not cohesive. Such rapid reading requires a different way of processing visual information. This stresses very the importance of the mind in shifting/centralization etc.., and for similar reasons Bates focused a lot of his techniques of freeing your mind of strain and barriers, as well as the eyes.
Paul, the #2 method is exactly what I'm talking about here. It has everything to do with the next thing I'll cover.
Had no one had said anything or shown interest in discussing or pointing out what I may be wrong about so I can either illustrate a point or correct myself, I might as well have not said anything further because no one seems interested. I'm only here until Saturday then I'll be gone for months to do a full appliance of what I've learned from 2 months of nonstop research.
I apologize for sounding harsh. But I waited, and waited... no one said anything, but finally Paul did. Even in the "a secret to understanding palming" topic I posted not long ago, no one really addressed the main topic itself other than the "mental retardation" thing. In the future, if there is a person (like me) who has been very successful with improving vision, please be an opportunist and seize the moment by asking questions or pointing out mistaken concepts... this will take everyone a long way.
In fact, if we don't try to understand concepts by being active participants in discussions that have to do with the "nature" of a concept, then we are far less likely to be successful... the Bates method is sooo counterinituitive that it makes understanding the "nature" of a concept essential to succeeding. I have attempted to dissect a lot of concepts, to understand them as fractions of a whole, to break them down to understand how it really works.
Anyway, I am going on to the next thing now to show Paul what I understand that has a lot to do with method #2...
This is going to be a little complex, I am going to paste what I sent someone regarding saccades. If you can decode what I'm talking about, you will have gone a long way to understanding a big and very important concept. It's still a theory but makes a lot of sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-begin email#1-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me explain how I understand saccades. This is a very good way to understand saccades. Imagine you are standing at 10 feet and facing a white wall. A black letter as big as you is on the wall. Imagine that saccades are physical objects you can manipulate, and you have 200 saccades in your hand. You throw them all at the wall and they land in all different places at once. The letter is so big that the saccades touch several different parts of the letter in one second. The brain easily interprets this image.
Imagine the letter shrinks to 1/4" in height, and you throw 200 saccades once again at the wall. Very few saccades will touch different parts of the letter in one second. The brain has a harder time recognizing the letter in an instant. Now imagine you have 10,000 saccades in your hand. The 1/4" letter is on the wall. You throw all 10,000 saccades and they hit so much of the wall in an instant that the 1/4" letter is practically swarmed with all those saccades. So many parts of the tiny letter is recognized that the brain is able to process it clearly.
If only a few saccades touch the letter and only a few parts are recognized, then the letter will appear to be a blur. The more saccades that touch different parts of the letter in an instant, the more sharply the letter will register in the mind.
I'm not talking about visualization with this example -- I'm just pointing out how saccades work. Visualization has its own special role in sharpening visual acuity also. But from my explanation of saccades, it's easy to understand how Lord Macaulay and the 10-year-old girl Phebe were able to read books very quickly and remember them verbatim, because they were processed in an instant so as to make the instant photographic memory as perfect as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-begin email#2-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you were to stand closer to a letter and throw all the saccades at it, the saccades will be able to more easily land on the letter. This is the same concept with standing at 10 feet and throwing the saccades and they go in a wider arc before hitting the wall. But if you stand 3 feet from the wall, the saccades will have a more limited range and be able to easily hit the letter.
This is a perfect analogy between Snellen eye chart in the distance versus up close and why it's easier to see everything up close.
What I'm thinking is that visualization of an object appearing perfect causes the mind to perceive the world sharply and the more you do this, the more your eyes will accustom themselves to having more saccadic vibrations because once you can see things clearly, your mind will unconsciously tell itself upon observing a detail clearly, "I've seen enough. Move on." The higher saccades become a habit, which leads to permanent vision improvement -- and people have different speeds at which they become able to permanently activate quicker saccadic vibrations via the mind.
The quicker the saccadic vibrations, the more sharp the world appears -- and visualization only increases saccadic movements because of quicker recognition of objects, which then becomes habitual. This makes objects more clear permanently.
Remember: visualization has a separate role from saccades but perfect visualization produces more rapid saccades.
It also has to do with how quick the mind can drop an old habit (slow saccades) and relearn quick saccades.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
begin email#3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I think saccades are so important in vision suddenly makes more sense when you think about how Elena once mentioned that astronauts in space could see perfectly a tennis ball flying over a tennis court on Earth from 300 miles away.
(1) <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/message/408">http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/message/408</a><!-- m -->
(2) <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/message/499">http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/message/499</a><!-- m -->
I've checked up to see if there was any truth to this, and although I could not find the exact information on this online, there have been a lot of research papers done on saccades in outer space, which is connected with increased functionality (visual acuity), but the papers require too much $ to look into them. What this tells me is that just as visual acuity may have unlimited potential, so do saccades -- the astronauts weren't using visualization to see a tennis ball from 300 miles away. Rather, it seems to have to do with saccades. Do you see now why I think saccades have a lot to do with maintaining high visual acuity, with the mind as an active participant in increasing these saccadic movements via visualization and recognizing objects easier so as to also mentally/habitually increase saccadic movements?
To me, it seems that three things affect saccadic movements: gravity and the mind and relaxation. Wouldn't you agree? It does sound possible, doesn't it? When you have a clear flash, you are training the mind to recognize objects faster, and so the mind adapts itself by increasing saccades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-end-
Have fun decoding this and let me know if you can figure it out by tomorrow. It shouldn't be hard to understand once you know what I'm talking about. Please let me know if you agree or disagree.
That makes a lot of sense, and the analogy answers some questions I had about saccades. You said imagination is a good way to improve saccades, how so? What should you be imagining, how should you be imagining it? Bates said you imagine the black letters on the white background, but my question always was: how big should we imagine the letters to be? That question was partially answered in your post about a mathematic period (infinitely small surface area).
Should imagination become a habit that can be developed by attempting it regularly?
Are there other methods of improving saccadic eye movements?
Paul
PS: This post had 131 views , I think people are interested, but too shy to reply.
Additionally, this is a very interesting and important subject.
Looking at the tops or edges of letters is a good way of reading black text. It's the same way you should look at letters on an eye chart. Black is the absence of light, and if you look at the black itself, you're really not looking at anything. Not that it's bad to look at black, it's just not the best way to see something.
As far as remembering a black letter and what size it should be, have you actually seen a letter that small? You can pop up an image, for a flash or longer, a lot easier if you've actually seen it just that way, even with a little context around it like the rest of the eye chart. I use a "C" all the time. It doesnt really matter to me how big it is, but something smaller does have a certain extra calming effect. But if you can't do it with a tiny tiny black point, don't fool yourself into thinking that it's the way to go, at least for now.
There's a lot to be said about visualizing correctly. I find that it's simply a matter of hitting a small insignificant detail or two and the whole thing pops up like opening the floodgates.
Dave
Site Administrator
"Half of our funny, heathen lives, we are bent double to gather things we have tossed away." - George Meredith
Paul Wrote:That makes a lot of sense, and the analogy answers some questions I had about saccades. You said imagination is a good way to improve saccades, how so? What should you be imagining, how should you be imagining it? Bates said you imagine the black letters on the white background, but my question always was: how big should we imagine the letters to be? That question was partially answered in your post about a mathematic period (infinitely small surface area).
Should imagination become a habit that can be developed by attempting it regularly?
Are there other methods of improving saccadic eye movements?
Paul
PS: This post had 131 views , I think people are interested, but too shy to reply.
Additionally, this is a very interesting and important subject.
I'll get to your questions but first I want to say something about my recent post. I thought about this: What about far-sighted people? They see well in the distance but not up close. The "arc" would work differently, and there may be some people who see better at certain distances somewhere in the middle range and not up close or in the distance.
It seems the mind may have some kind of range adjuster of its own for saccades. The mind may be trained to have a high # of saccades at a certain distance and a lower # of saccades at another distance.
Saccades do work by looking across a large # of places in an instant and recording it to memory. I think what I said about how saccades touch the different parts of letters and become a sharper image based on how many saccades touch the letter is pretty close to the truth.
That is why people with very high saccades are able to subconsciously scan a whole page with the "peripheral vision" because they do not realize their vision is oscillating which actually causes the center of vision to scan the whole page within a second.
The mind is able to create a perfect memory within a second, which can be recalled perfectly because everything was paid attention to equally by the subconscious mind. To be able to recall the information with perfect comprehension is a matter of creating a bridge between the conscious and subconscious minds.
It seems to be of great importance to understand this concept. Now I'll answer your questions.
Imagination is not an easy concept to explain. What I found most helpful to improving my imagination was to palm/sun alternately 3-5 minutes each (palming could be up to 10 min) for anywhere from 30-45 minutes outside in the backyard, sitting on a chair (my elbows were on my knees while palming), THEN go for a walk lasting at least 45 minutes... everyday. This allows me to apply the altered state from palming/sunning to the natural scenery while I walk. But I'd make sure that while walking, I stop somewhere (preferably high ground looking at low ground and the horizon) for about 5-10 minutes to try to look at the horizon without straining (I'm a myope, hyperopes should do the opposite and observe things up close without straining). I'd look at things (props) that appeared somewhat clear in medium range such as a car on a street or a window, imagine it perfectly with my eyes closed for a fraction of a second, then open my eyes and look at the object to notice it has sharpened up, and then look at the horizon to scan it at the same time with that higher clarity. I was able to gradually increase this so that I visualize objects closer and closer to the horizon and see it without having to look at anything in medium range, such as the car.
I always made sure to use light blinks. If I had to, I'd take a fraction of a second longer to think about the object perfectly but gradually this became less and less necessary as my imagination sharpened so I could think perfectly even with my eyes open. If my eyes watered for some reason, I would blink rapidly 10-15 times and this helped lubricate the whole eyeball, and I would also memorize the perfection of things I saw through the fake watery clear flash so that when I did the real clear flashes, I would be able to recall the perfection of what I'd seen with the watery flash.
I made it a rule not to forget to look in the distance as much as possible while walking. By palming/sunning alternately BEFORE going for a walk everyday, I found this really speeded up my progress. It takes commitment, but you should try it sometimes and see what happens.
The imagination is a very tricky concept to discuss. I'll break it down.
PALMING
To understand how palming should be done, the very first thing anyone needs to know is how to get rid of worries, distractions, and the concept of time itself. Read my older post at A secret to understanding palming to understand what I'm talking about. Then the next thing you should know is that while palming, it's fine to allow the mind to wander as long as it imagines events, people, objects, as if they were alive or inanimate, the way they would be in the real world, moving or nonmoving. Except they appear very real, and very perfect-appearing.
You can also imagine black ink spilling to make the background as black as possible, and it helps to have an emotional dimension attached to the black dimension, that way your mind is taking an interest in the pitch black appearance. Think of pitch black as something so black, such as black ink on paper, that it cannot appear any blacker. I also tried to imagine a black hole funnel (deep space) where I would be approaching the black hole, and it was as black as anything could get, and it would get bigger and bigger as I fell in, and I'd repeat this over and over. I did both this and the wandering of the mind alternately to see which would work better, and I found that I myself preferred to start off the session whenever I did palming by imagining the blackness FIRST and then later on (such as after 20 minutes of palming/sunning alternately) I would do more of the mental wandering and imagining objects perfectly.
SUNNING
For sunning, I always let my mind wander the same way I said I would when I palmed. I would imagine going to the beach, seeing the water and waves perfectly, the sand perfectly, the horizons and clouds perfectly, and people perfectly, the umbrella perfectly, the buildings perfectly. Everywhere I looked, everything appeared perfect. I would switch to anything else, such as imagining my extended family perfectly, the porch steps at grandma's house perfectly, the flowers in the garden perfectly, going inside and seeing all the rooms perfectly, watching my grandpa work at his desk perfectly, observing the mechanical pencil he was using up close perfectly by noticing it was yellow and the strands near the tip which is twisted perfectly. (But when palming and doing this, I would imagine the pencil tapping on a piece of paper and making a black period over and over)
I would imagine my friends' face perfectly, their freckles perfectly, their hair strands perfectly, playing cards perfectly. You get the idea. Everything, small or big, up close or in the distance, has to be imagined perfectly while you are sunning or palming. But your mind has to be freed of any strain before you do this.
If you are too tired, it may be better to wait until you feel refreshed before doing any of this (palming/sunning).
I also noticed that every time I palmed then sunned then palmed, the field of vision seemed to get blacker every time after sunning while palming, blacker than the previous palming. My imagination also sharpened like every 10 minutes or so while doing all this.
After walking, while in your home, you can find a spot somewhere in the middle of a large room and pick a prop (i.e. digital kitchen clock or a picture set atop something) to try to observe daily progress in how your vision sharpens.
I hope this is of help, try it sometimes, but don't give up if it doesn't seem to work at first. Try it for a couple of days.
I should also mention something else.
At first, my experience with clear flashes was just like any other clear flasher -- but gradually I found myself able to imagine things so perfectly that the sensation actually became entirely different from what 99% of any clear flasher would usually experience. As I described to another person earlier,
"It's a sensation as different as being in a lucid dream and waking up all of a sudden to feel that you're still seeing the dream with your eyes open...you are still half-there in the dream, but at the same time your eyes are wide open and seeing the world perfectly - the mind-eye connection is unmistakable at that very moment."
It's a moment like no other that any clear flasher may tell you of. 99% of clear flashers seem to lose hold of a mental image just as soon as they open their eyes, even though the world does sharpen up considerably for them. But in my case, I could really sense the mind-eye connection while my eyes were open; and hold onto the mental image; and at that moment I knew the mind-eye connection really was unmistakable.
Hard to describe. But I think anyone can achieve this, if only they inituitively know how. A lot of people in Bates' day did, when he cured them quickly. When the imagination is imperfect, they cannot see perfect. But when the imagination is perfect, the eyesight is perfect too.
I've described how to imagine in the previous post, which should help. What I mean is that when you have a clear flash, your mind increases the saccadic movements because it can more easily recognize the objects you see. You can train it to make a habit out of this. You are talking about the mathematical point, not a mathematical period. There is no area in a mathematical point. It is invisible. You can try to imagine an invisible point as small as possible in the distance, something smaller than the smallest thing you can imagine, and that would be a mathematical point. Look at Chapter XI: Central Fixation in Bates' own book and he says, "The fact is that the nearer the point of maximum vision approaches a mathematical point, which has no area, the better the sight." We can take this concept and try to imagine a mathematical point. I know someone who did it so successfully he said it was like throwing a switch and his personality transformed temporarily because of it, and he could see so much better without getting a headache. Many people get a headache when imagining anything that has an area, such as a black period.
Yes, imagination is very important and should be developed as a habit. It should be your #1 objective to learn how to imagine objects perfectly, since the mind and eyesight are so closely related. The long swing can improve saccadic eye movements too. I haven't really tried it but it seems to work well for many people. However, the imagination of an object appearing perfectly seems to supersede everything else.
Very interesting info on saccadic movements. Do I understand that in myopes the saccadic movement is slower and so they pick up less detail with which the brain can work with? Also, saccadic movements are caused by the extrinsic muscles of the eye, right? But aren't they incredibly quick sometimes, so how can the muscles operate that fast. I'd appreciate a response.
PS There is an interesting article by Robin Parson in i-see.com titled something like "Myopia is a Bad Habit." He says the trick is to get the eye movements speeded up but admits that is a tedious and sometimes years-long process so few will try it. His exercise is to spend time reading text letter by individual letter, the way we learned as children. Why this will speed up saccadic movements I am not sure unless the brain learns to speed up the reading immensely.
Me again. I posted too quickly. I believe you answered one of my questions on why looking at minute particulars speeded the saccade movements. I hope you will see this as I think your comments on saccades and imagination were invaluable. Saccades is a subject hat is neglected in vision treaining.
Years ago I asked an expert in saccades, at Oxford University I believe, what he thought of Parsons' theory. He dismissed it. Also, I hope Parsons was wrong and that it doesn't take years to speed up the s movements. Thanks very much for your valuable postings
, I think people are interested, but too shy to reply.
