Online test for astigmatism

[johnlink]

Here's a link to an online test for astigmatism: http://www.prokerala.com/health/eye-care/eye-test/astigmatism-test.php

[johnlink]

Are any of you doing any practices to reduce astigmatism per se?

The online test I cited above uses three images, including the one attached. I wonder whether that image might be used in a practice in order to reduce astigmatism. I wonder what would be the effect of viewing the image while slowly rotating it, perhaps while also pushing it to the far point.

[johnlink]

Here's another image used in the test cited above. My right eye has an axis of 10, which I believe is consistent with my observation that lines are darkest when they are rotated clockwise just a little bit (10 degrees) relative to vertical. The two sets of lines appear the same when I rotate the image clockwise a total of 55 degrees. From there, if I then alternate between rotating the image a few degrees clockwise and a few degrees counter-clockwise, the two sets of lines alternate in their appearance of darker and lighter. Perhaps that would be a useful practice to eliminate astigmatism.

So here's the practice for anyone with astigmatism: Rotate the image below until the two sets of lines appear the same. Then alternate between rotating the image a few degrees clockwise and a few degrees counter-clockwise and observe that two sets of lines alternate in their appearance of darker and lighter.

[PhilippK]

Hello John,

After 7 months of not wearing my prescription glasses I have improved my snellen from 20/60 to 20/30 but my -1.75 of astigmatism hasn't changed at all, which makes it impossible for me to see a clear image at any distance, which means I can't push print effectively. I tried the eye exercises for a few months but didn't notice a difference, I am beginning to think astigmatism is permanent.

[johnlink]

Hello John,

After 7 months of not wearing my prescription glasses I have improved my snellen from 20/60 to 20/30 but my -1.75 of astigmatism hasn't changed at all, which makes it impossible for me to see a clear image at any distance, which means I can't push print effectively. I tried the eye exercises for a few months but didn't notice a difference, I am beginning to think astigmatism is permanent.

Welcome to the forum, Philipp, and congratulations on your fabulous success going from 20/60 to 20/30 in just seven months!

Why do you say there is no change in your astigmatism? How have you measured it?

What is the prescription for the glasses you used to wear?

What eye exercises have you been doing?

Have you been regularly pushing print?

I've read several reports of people reducing their astigmatism so I believe it is not permanent. My own astigmatism seems to be less after just a few days using +1.75 glasses over my contacts when working on the computer. I wrote about that in reply #12 of this thread: http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,464.0.html

I encourage you to do the practice I suggested above. Maybe it will help.

[johnlink]

Here's another idea for astigmatism:

Using the same text you would use for print pushing, slowly rotate the page and notice how the vertical and horizontal segments of the letters vary in their darkness.

I think that this practice and and the one I described in a previous post might work because it appears that something is changing (i.e., the darkness of the lines or the darkness of the vertical and horizontal segments of the letters) that the brain knows can't actually be changing. The brain would rather see these objects with no change or at least with less change. If it can figure out a way to do that then the astigmatism will eliminated or reduced.

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,

I know people get, "wraped around the axel" with the word, "Astigmatism".  Certainly you should be concerned. Certainly you should check.  But remember this - all natural and NORMAL eyes have a certain degree of "astigmatism".  That small amount that we all have - will reduce and your refractive STATE moves towards zero.  I check my own refraction, using SPHERICAL lenses - and read 20/20.  Do I have "astigmatism"?  Do I even care?

Nope - I suggest that all those getting better-than 20/40, simply check their refractive state - using low-cost lenses - and just ignore any NORMAL astigmatism.  Thanks for your up-date and chart.

Here's another idea for astigmatism:

Using the same text you would use for print pushing, slowly rotate the page and notice how the vertical and horizontal segments of the letters vary in their darkness.

I think that this practice and and the one I described in a previous post might work because it appears that something is changing (i.e., the darkness of the lines or the darkness of the vertical and horizontal segments of the letters) that the brain knows can't actually be changing. The brain would rather see these objects with no change or at least with less change. If it can figure out a way to do that then the astigmatism will eliminated or reduced.

[johnlink]

Hi John,

I know people get, "wraped around the axel" with the word, "Astigmatism".  Certainly you should be concerned. Certainly you should check.  But remember this - all natural and NORMAL eyes have a certain degree of "astigmatism".  That small amount that we all have - will reduce and your refractive STATE moves towards zero.  I check my own refraction, using SPHERICAL lenses - and read 20/20.  Do I have "astigmatism"?

Please use the online test and report the results. The test will take about a minute of your time.

Do I even care?

Nope

I think it would make sense for you to care about any astigmatism you might have because it is an imperfection of vision. I suspect you would agree that none is better than some.

Thanks for your up-date and chart.

You're welcome.

[PhilippK]

My prescription was OD -2.25 x -1.5 x 90, OS -2.25 x -1.75 x 85.
The exercises were rotations and stretching which I still do everyday but don't devote much time to, and I am always pushing print to the point just before the astigmatism makes the text unreadable. Outdoors in sunshine I can wear a +2.5 and read close to 40cm but indoors on the computer it is challenging to read at 50cm naked eye, it would be nice if they made front-lit monitors where you could shine a strong light onto it.

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,
Subject: So much depends on a person's perspective - and how I decided "issues" in my life.
I have NO DESIRE to wear an "astigmatic" lens - when I objectively read 20/20 (or better) on my "home" Snellen.  I have no desired to be "prescribed" an astigmatic lens in an OD's office - because he  might "detect" a slight amount, and judge that I would be "better off" wearing an astigmatic lens - when I have proven naked-eye 20/20.  This is why I don't bother checking for any NORMAL astigmatism I *MIGHT* have.  There is yet another reason.

1) It might be true that ONE eye has SLIGHT astigmatism.  But if it does not prevent 20/20 - why should I be concerned with it? This is indeed a personal judgment of mine  - as long as I protect my distant vision - by wearing a "plus" for near.
2) Even WITH slight astigmatism in ONE or BOTH eyes - it turns out that the BRAIN "levels out" any slight "imperfection" in each eye.  Thus, astigmatism, is simply not a concern - since I have 2020 with both eyes open.
3) The OD measurement is VERY DIFFICULT. Most of  the time they either get it WRONG, or excessive.  I truly don't trust an OD to make this measurement.  It is pure "cosmetic" and NOT NECESSARY AT ALL.  It accomplishes no purpose at all - and NEVER helps my distant vision.

These are my PERSONAL reasons why I prefer 20/20 with no lens.  Even if an astigmatic lens gave me 20/18 - I still would not wear it.  But this is indeed a wise personal choice.  I am not suggesting that you do  - what *I* do.

[johnlink]

Hi John,
Subject: So much depends on a person's perspective - and how I decided "issues" in my life.
I have NO DESIRE to wear an "astigmatic" lens - when I objectively read 20/20 (or better) on my "home" Snellen.  I have no desired to be "prescribed" an astigmatic lens in an OD's office - because he  might "detect" a slight amount, and judge that I would be "better off" wearing an astigmatic lens - when I have proven naked-eye 20/20.  This is why I don't bother checking for any NORMAL astigmatism I *MIGHT* have.  There is yet another reason.

1) It might be true that ONE eye has SLIGHT astigmatism.  But if it does not prevent 20/20 - why should I be concerned with it? This is indeed a personal judgment of mine  - as long as I protect my distant vision - by wearing a "plus" for near.
2) Even WITH slight astigmatism in ONE or BOTH eyes - it turns out that the BRAIN "levels out" any slight "imperfection" in each eye.  Thus, astigmatism, is simply not a concern - since I have 2020 with both eyes open.
3) The OD measurement is VERY DIFFICULT. Most of  the time they either get it WRONG, or excessive.  I truly don't trust an OD to make this measurement.  It is pure "cosmetic" and NOT NECESSARY AT ALL.  It accomplishes no purpose at all - and NEVER helps my distant vision.

These are my PERSONAL reasons why I prefer 20/20 with no lens.  Even if an astigmatic lens gave me 20/18 - I still would not wear it.  But this is indeed a wise personal choice.  I am not suggesting that you do  - what *I* do.

Otis, I am not suggesting you wear a lens to correct any astigmatism, but I am curious whether you have any. Would you please do the online test for which I posted the link?

[OtisBrown]

Hi Phillipp,

Thanks for your commentary.  Long-term near does in fact create BOTH negative status and astigmatism - as you report.  The fact that you can read at 40 cm with a +2.5 diopter lens.  I SUSPECT you are seriously over-prescribed.  If you continue to "work" this issue of "independence" - I suggest you get your own Snellen - and check for 20/60 vision.  

Further - I would "convert" your prescription to "spherical-equivalent" - if you order new glasses.  Just take the -2.25 and 1/2 the astig part.

Thus your OD will be -3.0 spherical, and the OD will be -3.0 diopters also.  (You can ignore the angle part of it.)

I also find that people are CONSISTENTLY over-prescribed by -1.0 to -1.5 diopters.  The fact that you can READ in bright light with a plus-lens - is suggestive of that truth.

Only when you have the personal courage to check your own Snellen - will you find out exactly where you stand.

Otis

My prescription was OD -2.25 x -1.5 x 90, OS -2.25 x -1.75 x 85.
The exercises were rotations and stretching which I still do everyday but don't devote much time to, and I am always pushing print to the point just before the astigmatism makes the text unreadable. Outdoors in sunshine I can wear a +2.5 and read close to 40cm but indoors on the computer it is challenging to read at 50cm naked eye, it would be nice if they made front-lit monitors where you could shine a strong light onto it.

[johnlink]

My prescription was OD -2.25 x -1.5 x 90, OS -2.25 x -1.75 x 85.
The exercises were rotations and stretching which I still do everyday but don't devote much time to, and I am always pushing print to the point just before the astigmatism makes the text unreadable. Outdoors in sunshine I can wear a +2.5 and read close to 40cm but indoors on the computer it is challenging to read at 50cm naked eye, it would be nice if they made front-lit monitors where you could shine a strong light onto it.

What is the distance to your monitor? What is the distance at which you would be able to read it without it feeling like a challenge?

I'm still curious about this: Why do you say there is no change in your astigmatism? How have you measured it?

[johnlink]

Otis, to paraphrase someone in this forum, only when you have the personal courage to check your own astigmatism - will you find out exactly where you stand.

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,

I have no interest in "astigmatism" - since I have 20/20.

John>  Otis, I am not suggesting you wear a lens to correct any astigmatism, but I am curious whether you have any. Would you please do the online test for which I posted the link

Otis> I have look at these charts before.  The are meaningless - in my opinion.  If I did do a CHECK - that I WOULD CONSIDER, I would use the OFFICIAL "Jackson Cross Cylinder" - which is the ONLY RIGHT WAY.

Otis> At this time - I do not have that instrument - but I will publish a YouTube on how to use it - if YOU WISH TO BE ACCURATE AND UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO DO IT.