They invented wavefront glasses and claim supervision!

I have seen a number of these posts. They do not make sense. The posts seem
to be based upon the stringing together of certain buzz words. I am a mere
physicist trying to understand the science, art, and business, as well as
quackery of vision.

To my mind, the term wave front correction corresponds to what us old time
optical types call "figuring." It makes some sense for refraction correction
of eye balls. By shaping the cornea, it is possible to rid the eye of
on-axis aberrations if you ignore chromatic aberration. That is what lasik
is about.

It makes little sense to go to that trouble for ordinary spectacle lenses.
Your eye swivels around in various directions and wiping out an aberration
for one of these directions is likely going to add aberration for another.

Bill

 

I've said this before, and you know it, but RGP's can be configured to
reduce or eliminate the night glare and starbursts. Of course, pilo is
both easy and cheap, fairly safe in low doses, and acceptable for a
presbyope. For a non-presbyope, pilo stimulates accommodation and can
cause headaches from accommodative spasm.

DrG

 

I recently attended an optometric conference that featured a number of
prominent optometric leaders discussing the potential of wavefront
spectacles. One of the most fascinating speakers talked about his
experience using wavefront autorefractors on pilots that have 20/10
uncorrected vision. Consistently the wavefront analysis showed that
many of these "perfect eyes" had considerable abberations and needed a
corrective lens. BUT, when these eyes were "corrected", the pilots saw
consintently worse with their "corrective lenses".
This goes back to the basic fundamental fact that vision is a higher
level process that involves the visual cortex and its ability to
interpret the image it receives. These pilots have "20/10 brains" that
can cancel the spherical abberations of their natural eye, but that
same part of their visual system breaks down when it is given a
"textbook perfect" wavefront guided image.

Wavefront glasses will not take a 20/25 visual system and make it
resolve to 20/10, anymore than wavefront spectacles can take a 20/10
eye to 20/5.

 

Quick
Jan 3, 9:00 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
From: "Quick" <> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:00:42 GMT
Local: Tues, Jan 3 2006 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: They invented wavefront glasses and claim supervision!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

<<<<<
I didn't get that impression. I more or less got the impression
that he has "managed" to drive. "Pilocarpine was the only
reason I passed my driving test" does not inspire confidence.
I went to renew my license and found they had a box I was supposed to
look into. There were colored lights and symbols I had to be able to
see clearly, as if I was driving a car at night. I mumbled something
about needing the restroom and ran out to my truck where I had
pilocarpine. I put the drops in and by the time I made it back to the
license bureau my eyes had constricted enough that I had no problem
passing the test.

 

I heard this too. Perhaps the wavefront wasnt aligned properly or they
needed some time to get used to aberration free vision. 20/10 vision is
very nearly aberration free and close to the retinal and even brain
limit. However the brain is flexable and can relearn what clear vision
is. I have seen myopes not get glasses till they were 20, even 30 and
for the first time they see clearly. At first they dont get the concept
of clear vision and many arent even overwhelmed. They physically see
clearly but its still a blur in the brain. Over time the brain learns
about clear vision. I read the story of one female who was like 25 and
a poor immigrant and a high myope. When she got glasses she saw 20/30
but when asked the difference she said theres a small difference. This
proves the brain theory point. Her eyes see 20/30 but her brain is
still seeing worse than 20/200.

Another example is I can take my 20/30 vision and make it 20/25 with
pinholes however things actually look worse somehow even though im
reading 20/25! My brain hasnt learned such sharp vision!

 

Oh, OK,

I can't help but wonder why the brain didn't fix things
before glasses?

You imply it didn't when they were uncorrected.
Why would it do it now?

Oh. My bad. It was *proof*.
In that case I'll retract everything I said.

-Quick