You can be 20/20 or even 20/15 and still very slightly myopic just shy of plano!

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Ace, Oct 25, 2006.

  1. Ace

    Ace Guest

    The below is someone's experience with Intacs(but anything that
    undercorrects will achieve the same end result be it glasses, lasik,
    orthoK, intacs)


    Hi Molly, First of all, a 'plano', or zero
    refraction is not required to have 20/20 or better vision.
    For example, I am about -0.50 in my left eye, and see
    20/15 with it.


    My comments: Such a small residual myopia undercorrection does not have
    much affect on UCVA.
    No one with a -.25 undercorrection will lose a line and this is comming
    from an optometrist's experience. -.5 diopters typically costs just one
    line so instead of 20/15 you may be 20/20 which is still considered
    perfect vision and nothing should be done but enjoy your crisp vision!
    I have tested my UCVA with my older glasses and found almost no
    difference with a slight undercorrection. But a slight undercorrection
    can help keep you out of readers without really making an impact on
    distance vision so its great! For this reason, an undercorrection with
    orthoK will pratically eliminate my dependency on glasses, period
    except maybe for driving.
     
    Ace, Oct 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ace

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Ace,

    You already have negative credibility. Do you have any concept of what
    this propensity (you AND elevator boy) to post third hand, anecdotal
    information on a sci. NG makes you look like?

    Fool.
     
    Neil Brooks, Oct 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ace

    Jan Guest

    Ace schreef:
    Shut up Ace.
    Real eyecare specialists here are tired of reading your unverifiable
    anecdotal messages.

    It is NOT informative for the layman and professionals are getting bored

    You have no knowledge in this field other then reading what you have
    found with google, things people with interest on these issues can find
    themselves.

    When those people have questions after surfing on the internet they are
    more than welcome to put a question on what they didn't understand.

    And you Ace , are not in the position to answer on these questions
    because you have not the quality.

    Please be aware of the fact this newsgroup is originally meant for
    people working in the eyecare field.

    For once without my usual blablabla about your shortsightedness.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Oct 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Ace

    Ace Guest

    I can do without your rudeness. You make a bad impression on others.
    The fact remains that -1d or less of myopia does not make a significent
    difference in distance vision and that you can be 20/20 and it does not
    neccessarily mean you are dead on plano. I hope you learn this fact now.
     
    Ace, Oct 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Ace

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    The refractive STATES are measured with a retinoscope, and
    supporting technique.

    It is possible, under this circumstance to have 20/20 vision,
    and a negative refractive STATE.

    This is what Professor Young had to say about this issue:


    +++++++++++++++++++++++


    Title: "Visual Acuity and Refractive Errors in Primates"

    Francis Young, Primate Research Center, Washington State
    University, Pullman, Washington

    Reprinted from the Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, APA
    1969

    Extracts:

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

    Subject: Visual Acuity and measured Refractive STATES.

    It is possible to have 20/20 and a refractive STATE of -1/2
    diopters -- as per this discussion.

    (Refractive STATE measured with a retinoscope and supporting
    technique.)


    "... Animals less than 12 of age with refractive errors*
    between 2.00 and -0.5 diopters, normal retina and no obvious
    visual difficulties are likely to have 20/20 acuity at near and
    far at better than the 5% level of confidence.

    Of some 26 rhesus monkeys within this range of refractive
    errors* all had 20/15 or 20/20 visual acuity.

    Animals with refractive errors* greater than 2.00 diopters
    may have 20/20 acuity at far but not at near.

    Animals with refractive errors* which are more minus than
    -0.5 diopters will not have 20/20 acuity at far but may have it at
    near."


    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


    * Errors

    The term "error" comes from traditional practice, where all
    refractive STATES that were not exactly zero -- were called
    "errors".

    This implies something about these monkeys that is simply not
    true.

    That their eyes were "defective" in some manner. In fact,
    Dr. Young states that (with good retinas and no medical problems)
    eyes with refractive STATES in the range of -1/2 diopter to +2
    diopters have excellent vision.

    The term "error", while traditional, leads to false ideas
    about the visual acuity of primates in the wild.

    In fact the distribution of refractive STATES of wild monkeys
    have an average of about 0.7 diopters, with a standard deviation of
    +0.7 diopters.

    With the knowledge that you can have 20/20 and a refractive
    STATE of -1/2 diopters, and further 20/20 with a refractive STATE
    of +2.5 diopters, it means that, in the wild, about 98 percent of
    the primates had excellent vision.

    This is also true of the Eskimos -- who could not read, and
    had no written language.

    Best,


    Otis


    =========
     
    otisbrown, Oct 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Ace

    Jan Guest

    Ace schreef:
    Sure, but it don't stop
    On second thought, if you shut up and stop copy and past stuff from the
    internet ,it will.
     
    Jan, Oct 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Ace

    CatmanX Guest

    Don't stop Jan, I like someone who says it like it is.

    Now take Cletis for example. He likes posting the same bad reports time
    after time, thinking that if we see something for the 500th time we
    will finally believe him. Unfortunately he hasn't the intellegence to
    realize we all know he is demented.

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Oct 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Ace

    serebel Guest


    It's funny how the retard won't take the hint that people know how
    foolish he sounds, but it's even better how Otis seems obsessed with
    chimps. To each their own I guess.
     
    serebel, Oct 27, 2006
    #8
  9. Ace

    Ace Guest


    Most people that are 20/20 with a slight myopia would be 20/15 or even
    better corrected, not that they ever need correction anyway. But they
    are lucky because that slight myopia will give them much better near
    vision, reduce their dependency on readers and yet they still see
    perfect 20/20 distance! In fact their quality of vision at all
    distances is better because of better than average optics and
    possibility even the retina is better(higher resolution, more
    rods/cones) having the best BCVA capability is very important for many
    reasons!
     
    Ace, Oct 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Ace

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    There are two separate issues here.

    1. The refractive STATES of the young, and in this case
    "wild" primates where their life depends on monitoring
    distanct objects -- that can kill time. and

    2. The situation that develops beyond the age
    of about 40, where the RANGE of accommodation
    (stop-to-stop) graducally becomes less, so that
    a person who has a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter
    will begin to see slight blur at near. Thus the
    term presbyopia, or "old" sight.

    And you are correct, there is some advantage
    to a SLIGHT negative STATE over the age of
    40, as there is an advantage to a slight
    difference in refractive STATES between
    the eyes (natural monovision -- say 1 diopter
    difference).

    If you have BOTH of these "situations", (assuming
    you pass the DMV), then you will be able to
    see both far and near (moderately) into your 60s,
    with no need for a lens.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Ace

    Ace Guest


    A slight negetive refractive state is better than any positive
    refractive state in older people. What you want to do is save a +.5 to
    +1 "buffer" which you will lose in college and end up between plano and
    -1.5. This isnt bad enough to need glasses but will help keep you out
    of reading glasses till well into old age. A positive refractive state
    of up to +3 is fine for young children and for college students aged
    around 20, youll want your positive state to be around a +1 then after
    college you dont want any positive state because this will become a big
    problem in a few years when presbyopia takes hold. First your near
    vision goes then your distance vision goes.
     
    Ace, Oct 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Ace

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Subject: Natural Refractive STATES

    In the young (Rhesus-primates) the refractive states
    run from -0.7 diopters to +2.1 diopters (96 percent
    of the population.

    Obviously the natural refractive STATE (in the open)
    is +0.7 diopters. This is a very valuable situation for
    a child.
    the refractive STATE of the natural eye will change
    with the applied minus lens. (The plus response is
    slightly different).

    Therefore, if one wished to keep his refractive STATE
    in a normal range, it would be necessary to begin
    refractive-STATE modification BEFORE THE SNELLEN
    GOES BELOW 20/40.

    With refractive STATES from zero to +1.5 diopters -- the
    young will have 20/20 vision (with no medical problem
    with the retina). In any event, you can check this
    yourself with your own Snellen.

    So the real issue it to understand this normal
    distribution for the fundamental eye -- kept
    in the "open".

    By "wise" understanding, and confirming your
    refractive STATE with Snellen and trial-lens kit,
    you could begin the preventive process at zero diopters,
    and SLOWLY move your refractive state towards
    the natural (and desired) refractive state between
    +0.7 to +1.0 diopters.

    Once you reach that refractive STATE, you could quit
    using the plus -- and monitor your refractive STATE until
    it SLOWLY moved towards zero diopters.

    But this "iterative" process -- you could keep your
    refractive STATE in this normal range -- and
    avoid the development of any NEGATIVE refractive STATE.

    Just one man's opinion.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Oct 28, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.