Pinhole observation & double vision

I am now having double vision (actually triple vision) in one eye. My MD
(Ophthalmologist) suspects an early stage cataract that 'could' have what he
calls 'spokes' that can refract light, possibly giving a second image on the
retina. Before taking any action he referred me to a Retina Specialist to
rule out trouble in that area.

The Retinologist (?) checked me out, and was pleased to hear that I had
experimented with a pinhole in a business card. He said that my findings
indicate the cause to be in the optics area of the eye, not the retina. My
MD has never been interested in anything I have to report regarding the use
of a pinhole.

My MD said, at my follow-up visit, that my current astigmatism is corrected
in my prescription, but he requested a special test to determine the actual
shape of the cornea. The results showed that extreme astigmatism is present
in both eyes. The reason I didn't notice the double vision in the left eye
is because I have dry Macular Degeneration in that eye, and therefore do not
see small objects . He has now referred me to a Cornea Specialist for
further examination before making a decision on what must be done regarding
my double vision.

I have seen many excellent remarks made by members of this newsgroup, and
hope that someone (Dr. Judy?) can offer information regarding what I am
seeing with the use of a pinhole.

I found that by making the pinhole smaller than a thumbtack sized hole I can
clearly see what appears to be similar to what one would see when looking
through a microscope & water on a slide. When I slowly move the card away
from my eye I can see a detailed an image of many small round or elongated
things that look like bubbles (they do not move about). My wife and a
neighbor can see the same thing using this technique.

The difference between what I see and what my wife sees is this: I see a
dark figure shaped something like the side view of a perched bird, with the
tail at about at the 5 o'clock position, and a small head bent down from the
body near the middle of the picture (much like the profile of a blackbird
with his head & beak facing forward). This image does not rotate if I rotate
the card.

I've discovered that if I slowly move the card away from my eye while
looking at a small bright light in the distance I see a single light at
about the 8 o'clock position, below the blackbird. But if I move the card
slightly to the left the small light JUMPS to the right, behind the
blackbird. If instead I move the card downward the light JUMPS to the 11
o'clock position, above the blackbird's head. I feel that this explains the
triple vision phenomenon, as without a pinhole I actually see three lights
(6-headlights in the case of an oncoming vehicle at night). One more thing
of interest is that when I move the pinhole card around, and keep my eye
looking at the spot it was originally, the blackbird stays visible in the
pinhole.

I mentioned this to my MD and asked if he could explain what I was looking
at; the cornea? the lens? the retina? He said that he didn't have a clue,
and dropped it there. I really think this information is valuable and
important in determining my condition and making the necessary
correction(s).

Can anyone offer information regarding the picture my wife * I see, and then
what the blackbird object I alone see in the object? I believe the object
is what must be somehow dealt with. If this is what my MD refers to as
'spokes', then possibly removal of the cataract will cure the problem.

I tried to make this brief, but obviously failed to do so. In any event I
would appreciate any thoughts regarding what this 'blackbird' thing is, and
where it is located. I have no way to determine what I'm actually focusing
on


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I've already apologized for the lengthy post, and regret sounding
'repetitive', but found it difficult to describe so that a reader could get
an idea of what I see using the pinhole.

I posted to this group basically because my own MD has little (spelled
'none') interest in the information, and has no idea what I actually looking
at when using the pinhole. With only one good eye, I cannot afford to be a
target for trial & error exploratory surgery.

Reading previous posts to this group I was impressed with the reports given
by patients as well as suggestions offered by professionals and by those
with prior experience dealing with like problems. I had hoped for something
similar. So far there has been none of these expected responses. Either my
post was not clear enough, despite its length, or no one has experienced
anything similar, even a professional.

Ron

"Salmon Egg" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:C23F3C61.6E9C7%(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 4/8/07 12:36 PM, in article
> 461949b5$0$16333$(E-Mail Removed),
> "Ron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> The Retinologist (?) checked me out, and was pleased to hear that I had
>> experimented with a pinhole in a business card. He said that my findings
>> indicate the cause to be in the optics area of the eye, not the retina.
>> My
>> MD has never been interested in anything I have to report regarding the
>> use
>> of a pinhole.
>
> Your post is pretty long and somewhat repetitive. It seems that you
> understand your situation well. I am not a health professional.
>
> One of the things that happened to me when I developed cataracts was that
> my
> crystalline lens developed variation of index throughout its extent. That
> is, it as if extra little lenses were pasted onto the lens. If these
> individual lenslets are good enough to form an image on the retina, you
> get
> multiple images.
>
> The pinhole restricts light passing into your eye to be smaller than the
> extent of the pinhole. That allows you to select which lenslet forms the
> image.
>
> Bill
> -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.
>
>


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 4/9/07 9:52 AM, in article
(E-Mail Removed) m, "Dr Judy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Your doctor is a biologist, not a physicist. He is concerned about
> what structures of your eye might be involved, if they have disease
> and if there is treatment. The pinhole effects don't provide
> information about what structures of the eye might be involved.
> Monocular diplopia or triplopia indicated a problem with the media of
> the eye, most likely is lens, could also be retinal folds or fluid,
> or irregular cornea.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. Physicians
should know a fair about of physics and chemistry among other things.
Otherwise, they are cookbook biological techs. From x-rays, sphygmometers,
ultrasound scanners, and even phoropters, medical instruments are key to
medial determinations. The more my doctor understands the capabilities and
limitations of his/her instruments, the more confidence I will have.

Use of the pinhole is a crude method of distinguishing refractive problems
from sensory (retinal) problems. I would hope that for anything serious,
there will be further investigation. Using a pinhole to select one of
multiple images because of a cataract seems pretty straightforward to me. I
do not need a decade of medical school and residency to understand that.

Bill
-- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go.

Ron,

There is one thing I am wondering about, is what you see when
looking at an Amsler Grid. Skipping the pinholes for a moment. The
reason I am asking is that about a month ago some people (on a macular
degeneration forum) were reporting (additional) double lines on that
grid, that however seemed to be a temporary phenomenon.

A grid is available at:

http://www.mdsupport.org/amslergrid.html

but that is white on black. Maybe a black on white is more
sensitive. Good luck.

Don W.

>
> Yes, it is crude and that is why the poster's doctor wasn't very
> interested in it beyond noting that as it didn't solve the problem,
> the problem was not refractive. The doctor did do further
> investigation of eye structures.- Hide quoted text -
>

How are we saying the problem is "not refractive"? The spoked
cataract can produce double vision. And he has it.

Don W.

"Dr Judy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> On Apr 9, 3:02 pm, Salmon Egg <salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/9/07 9:52 AM, in article
>> 1176137575.520756.30...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.co m, "Dr Judy"
>>
>> <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> > Your doctor is a biologist, not a physicist. He is concerned about
>> > what structures of your eye might be involved, if they have disease
>> > and if there is treatment. The pinhole effects don't provide
>> > information about what structures of the eye might be involved.
>> > Monocular diplopia or triplopia indicated a problem with the media of
>> > the eye, most likely is lens, could also be retinal folds or fluid,
>> > or irregular cornea.
>>
>> That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.
>> Physicians
>> should know a fair about of physics and chemistry among other things.
>> Otherwise, they are cookbook biological techs. From x-rays,
>> sphygmometers,
>> ultrasound scanners, and even phoropters, medical instruments are key to
>> medial determinations. The more my doctor understands the capabilities
>> and
>> limitations of his/her instruments, the more confidence I will have.
>
> I disagree. Doctors need to know how an instrument works, they don't
> need to know how to design one. To explain all the shadows and bright
> spots seen by the poster throught a pinhole would require advanced
> diffraction optics equations and mathematics that is beyond a non
> physicist.
>
> Instruments do not diagnose. They provide information that is used by
> the doctor, along with case history and information from many tests to
> arive at a diagnosis.
>
>> Use of the pinhole is a crude method of distinguishing refractive
>> problems
>> from sensory (retinal) problems. I would hope that for anything serious,
>> there will be further investigation
>
> Yes, it is crude and that is why the poster's doctor wasn't very
> interested in it beyond noting that as it didn't solve the problem,
> the problem was not refractive. The doctor did do further
> investigation of eye structures.
>

I appreciate the feedback. My reason for telling my doctor and this group,
is only because I am the only person on earth who can actually see what I
see. I assumed that by passing along the information regarding what I see,
it would help the doctor determine a probable cause & cure. I was
disappointed when no one is interested in what I had to say. I also thought
it interesting to note that a small light would literally jump from one
place in my vision to another when the pinhole is moved horizontally, giving
me a double image without the pinhole.

I assumed I was providing important information, but apparently I was wrong.
Perhaps mentioning my double vision to my doctor in the first place was
wrong too, but how else would the he know?

Thanks for your time - Ron


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

> I appreciate the feedback. My reason for telling my doctor and this group,
> is only because I am the only person on earth who can actually see what I
> see. I assumed that by passing along the information regarding what I see,
> it would help the doctor determine a probable cause & cure. I was
> disappointed when no one is interested in what I had to say. I also thought
> it interesting to note that a small light would literally jump from one
> place in my vision to another when the pinhole is moved horizontally, giving
> me a double image without the pinhole.
>
> I assumed I was providing important information, but apparently I was wrong.
> Perhaps mentioning my double vision to my doctor in the first place was
> wrong too, but how else would the he know?
>
> Thanks for your time - Ron
>

Well, I don't think you should react that way. Your first note, I
think, throws light on how this problem can be viewed. Literally. My
own personal view is that the vision patient can see his problems
better provided he makes an effort to do so.

Don W.

Dr Judy wrote:

>A cataract is not a refractive problem. A refractive problem is one
>that can easily be corrected with glasses.
>

I think both statements are innacurate. Cataracts cloud or otherwise
obscure the refractive situation of the eye and can induce various
refractive errors, including regular astigmatism, myopic shifts,
irregular astigmatism, and polyopsia, all of which are refractive
problems. Not all refractive problems can "easily be corrected with
glasses", that's for sure. All optical aberrations are refractive
problems by definition.

w.stacy, o.d.

On Apr 9, 5:13 pm, William Stacy <wst...@obase.net> wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > I actually see three lights (6-headlights in the case of an oncoming
> > vehicle at night).
>
> This is fairly common and is indeed caused by the cataract. Cataract
> surgery will eliminate it entirely.
>
> w.stacy, o.d.

Asking the same question as before. How would the Amsler grid be
seen with this condition?

Don W.

The kind of triple vision commonly coming from a cataract will not
affect the Amsler grid, except perhaps to blur it. Amsler grid
double/distorted lines are cause by retina problems.

w.stacy, o.d.

Don W wrote:

>On Apr 9, 5:13 pm, William Stacy <wst...@obase.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I actually see three lights (6-headlights in the case of an oncoming
>>>vehicle at night).
>>>
>>>
>>This is fairly common and is indeed caused by the cataract. Cataract
>>surgery will eliminate it entirely.
>>
>>w.stacy, o.d.
>>
>>
>
> Asking the same question as before. How would the Amsler grid be
>seen with this condition?
>
>Don W.
>
>
>
>