Odd visual effed

I'm getting an odd visual effect in just one eye.

Most noticeable when looking at a colored bright light spot like the LED on the front of the TV etc.

Instead of the normal round image, I get a much bigger image of the same color,
with what is best described as radial lines from the center, in only one quadrant
total size about 10 times the image seen in the other eye.

The color makes not difference, get the same effect with red, yellow and green.

Noticed it first when driving at night, with the tail lights of cars where there are no street lights.

Presumably its a well known phenomenon but its a bit hard to google for.

Rod Speed wrote:

> I'm getting an odd visual effect in just one eye.

> Most noticeable when looking at a colored bright light spot like the
> LED on the front of the TV etc.

> Instead of the normal round image, I get a much bigger image of the same color, with what is best described as radial
> lines from the center, in only one quadrant total size about 10 times the image seen in the other eye.

> The color makes no difference, get the same effect with red, yellow and green.

Just noticed that I dont get that effect without my glasses, I'm moderately short
sighted and only get a focused image when about 6" from the object without glasses.

> Noticed it first when driving at night, with the tail lights of cars
> where there are no street lights.

> Presumably its a well known phenomenon but its a bit hard to google for.

Salmon Egg wrote
> Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>> I'm getting an odd visual effect in just one eye.

>> Most noticeable when looking at a colored bright
>> light spot like the LED on the front of the TV etc.

>> Instead of the normal round image, I get a much bigger image of the same color,
>> with what is best described as radial lines from the center, in only one quadrant
>> total size about 10 times the image seen in the other eye.

>> The color makes no difference, get the same effect with red, yellow and green.

>> Just noticed that I dont get that effect without my glasses, I'm moderately short
>> sighted and only get a focused image when about 6" from the object without glasses.

>> Noticed it first when driving at night, with the tail lights of cars where there are no street lights.

>> Presumably its a well known phenomenon but its a bit hard to google for.

> I am not a vision professional. Anyway, by now you should know
> not to base your health upon uncritical evaluation of internet stories.

I never do that. When someone proposes a particular cause, I can then
check the detail on the net and see if it matches in other respects etc.

> I had similar effects as a cataract was developing.

It doesnt appear to be a cataract. Our phone service that can be
used to get medical advice pointed out that you should be able to
see a cataract by looking at the pupils in a mirror, and I cant see any
sign of a cataract in that eye and the lens looks identical in both eyes.

> One simple experiment is to view the light source through a
> pinhole close to your eye. See if you see the source wander
> as you move the pinhole transverse to your line of sight.

I do get a bit of an effect like that with the LED viewed thru the pinhole,
but I get the same effect with both eyes and dont see the radial lines
at all with the affected eye when using the pinhole. The pinhole does
act like a quite effective lens with my short sighted eyes.

> That would be an indication that there is a refractive
> body inside your eyer that distorts the image projected
> onto the retina. As you move the pinhole, different
> portions of your refractive systme can image differently.

That doesnt appear to be my problem.

Thanks for your comments and test.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Rod Speed" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'm getting an odd visual effect in just one eye.
>
> Most noticeable when looking at a colored bright light spot like the LED on
> the front of the TV etc.
>
> Instead of the normal round image, I get a much bigger image of the same
> color,
> with what is best described as radial lines from the center, in only one
> quadrant
> total size about 10 times the image seen in the other eye.
>
> The color makes not difference, get the same effect with red, yellow and
> green.
>
> Noticed it first when driving at night, with the tail lights of cars where
> there are no street lights.
>
> Presumably its a well known phenomenon but its a bit hard to google for.

Starburst:

http://www.123rf.com/photo_2986156.html

It's a deliberate graphic and photographic effect sometimes, as you can
see if you Google it.

I've mostly noted it *after* a cataract repair, so I don't know whether
it's abnormal for you *not* to have it in the other eye.

I was not too impressed with your telephone cataract "test". It's true
that advanced stages of cataract can be seen that way, but the earlier
stages, where you have still lost a lot of vision, can't.

We'll see what the pros on this group have to say.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
(E-Mail Removed)

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rod Speed
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It doesnt appear to be a cataract. Our phone service that can be
> used to get medical advice pointed out that you should be able to
> see a cataract by looking at the pupils in a mirror, and I cant see any
> sign of a cataract in that eye and the lens looks identical in both eyes.

I don't think self diagnosis is a good idea here. I advise seeing an
Otphamologist. Might be nothing at all. Might be a cataract, developing
a retinal tear or glaucoma.

--
Charles

In article <YdydnYqs-(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Tyner
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> You need a new phone service.

I have a phone service like that with my health plan. It can be helpful
but the main idea seems to be to save the health plan money by the plan
member not going for a doctor visit. I am sure in some cases they can
eliminate a not needed doctor visit but in this case he should see an
eye doctor.

--
Charles

Charles wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rod Speed
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> It doesnt appear to be a cataract. Our phone service that can be
>> used to get medical advice pointed out that you should be able to
>> see a cataract by looking at the pupils in a mirror, and I cant see
>> any sign of a cataract in that eye and the lens looks identical in
>> both eyes.

> I don't think self diagnosis is a good idea here.

Thats not what I am attempting, it was a Sunday here when
I worked out what the effect was and I prefer to check out
the detail on the net before getting a professional opinion.

> I advise seeing an Otphamologist.

We have to get a referral from a GP for that an there isnt one in my
town, we get periodic visits from one, or at least used to 35 years ago,
dunno what happens currently, I notice that one no longer has an office here.

The optometrist will know and I trust him to be able to tell me if its
just another odd effect with the glasses with my eyes deteriorating
or whether an otphalmologist is needed. He was very helpful with
a previous effect of aging and can certainly tell me if its a cataract etc.

> Might be nothing at all. Might be a cataract, developing a retinal tear or glaucoma.

Yes, but presumably the detail of the symptom should at least rule some of those out.

Dan Abel wrote
> Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>> I'm getting an odd visual effect in just one eye.

>> Most noticeable when looking at a colored bright
>> light spot like the LED on the front of the TV etc.

>> Instead of the normal round image, I get a much bigger image of the same color,
>> with what is best described as radial lines from the center, in only one quadrant
>> total size about 10 times the image seen in the other eye.

>> The color makes not difference, get the same effect with red, yellow and green.

>> Noticed it first when driving at night, with the tail lights of cars where there are no street lights.

>> Presumably its a well known phenomenon but its a bit hard to google for.

> Starburst:

> http://www.123rf.com/photo_2986156.html

It is quite close to that, but with the radials only in a single 90 degree quadrant
and quite pronounced lines, just 3, without the blurred bit in that one of yours.

> It's a deliberate graphic and photographic effect sometimes, as you can see if you Google it.

Yeah, thats what I wanted, something I can google. Thanks for that.

> I've mostly noted it *after* a cataract repair, so I don't know
> whether it's abnormal for you *not* to have it in the other eye.

> I was not too impressed with your telephone cataract "test". It's
> true that advanced stages of cataract can be seen that way, but
> the earlier stages, where you have still lost a lot of vision, can't.

OK, but surely the fact that I dont get that effect without the
glasses and with the pinhole makes it unlikely its a cataract ?

> We'll see what the pros on this group have to say.

Yep. Thats was my intention, since it was a Sunday here.

Mike Tyner wrote
> Rod Speed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>> It doesnt appear to be a cataract. Our phone service that can be
>> used to get medical advice pointed out that you should be able to
>> see a cataract by looking at the pupils in a mirror, and I cant see any sign of a cataract in that eye and the lens
>> looks identical in both eyes.

> You need a new phone service.

Its the only one we have available, provided by the state govt.

They did say I should see a doctor within 72 hours
and only made that comment when I wondered
whether is might be a cataract given my age etc.

> Cataracts begin gradually, often detectable for a decade or two before opacities are visible in the mirror.

> Before cataracts turn white, they often fragment optically, so that multiple images and flare are common.

OK.

> Your phone consultant has blithely whitewashed over the most likely cause of polyopia and flare after age 50 or so.

No they didnt, they said to see a doctor within 72 hours.

> We could speculate better if we knew your age,

64

> your refraction,

Dunno. Dont have that handy. I havent needed new glasses
for something like 10 years tho I'm getting to the stage where
I should get a new prescription. I sit a long way back from the
monitor, in an arm chair, almost a meter back and can need to
move forward a bit to distinginguish between Arial 6s and 8s now.

> your acuity,

Dont know how to specify that or how to measure it either.

> your old refraction, etc.

Dont know that either, we dont get those routinely when getting new glasses.

I have been meaning to document that stuff, along with the other stuff like blood test results
so plan to get them from the optometrist when I see him about the effect I am getting.

I'm basically asking whether an optometrist is a good enough starting place
or whether I should make an appointment with the GP to get a referral to
an opthalmologist if that turns out to be what the GP considers is appropriate.

Presumably the optometrist should know. Thats why I asked here,
because it was a sunday when I originally posted and I assumed
that there should be optometrists reading here and maybe even
some other eye professional.

Surely the fact that I dont get the effect without glasses and with the pinhole is significant ?

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Rod Speed
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I'm basically asking whether an optometrist is a good enough starting place
> or whether I should make an appointment with the GP to get a referral to
> an opthalmologist if that turns out to be what the GP considers is appropriate.

My optometrist noticed my first cataract but that was in the USA. I
thought I needed a new prescription but he said he could not do
anything because it was a cataract. I would not begin to know anything
about optometrists and health care in Australia and others here might
not know either. Optometrists in Australia might do more, the same or
might do less than those in the USA.

At your age a cataract would not be at all surprising. Mine was a
surprise because I was only 40 at the time.

--
Charles