Author Topic: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?  (Read 3967 times)

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« on: March 22, 2013, 10:56:21 AM »
As my myopia reduces my far point moves further away. If this happens as a result of the axial length shortening then the near point will also move further away. Are any of you with doing work to bring the near point in? It seems to me that it would be useful make a practice of moving print through the entire range that's in focus and pull the print at the near point in addition to pushing it at the far point.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 11:58:17 AM by johnlink »

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2013, 11:57:29 AM »
Otis, have you done any work to bring your near point in?

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2013, 12:27:10 PM »
As my myopia reduces my far point moves further away. If this happens as a result of the axial length shortening then the near point will also move further away. Are any of you with doing work to bring the near point in? It seems to me that it would be useful make a practice of moving print through the entire range that's in focus and pull the print at the near point in addition to pushing it at the far point.

As mentioned in my other recent posts, my right eye is 20/20 and my left eye is 20/40.  Otis  is correct that my right eye is better at distance vision and my left eye is better close up.  Otis calls this  "monovision", but my understanding is that monovision is more of a deliberate strategy of prescribing different lenses for right and left eye to force one eye to specialize on distance vision, the other on near vision. By contrast, the specialization of my two eyes was spontaneous, not deliberate or induced.   ("Monovision" is a curious term, since I don't experience any loss in three-dimensional depth perception).  

When I am looking at my cell phone or reading fine print, I can see clearly as close as 6 inches with my left eye, but only up to 10 inches with my right.  With both eyes open the stronger left eye takes over, so that's fine. While specialized vision has the advantage that I can cover the full range with both eyes, I'm still of a mind that I would like to maintain maximum flexibility for both eyes.  So I find myself winking the left eye shut to work on "print pulling" with just my right eye open. I often do this when reading my cell phone.

Winking one eye shut is tiring at first, but if you practice it over many days, you can get by with one eye shut for 5-10 minutes at a time.  I open the shut eye briefly every so often to keep it "awake"

Print pulling is just the inverse of print pushing -- doing your best to read at the edge of blur.  I find that the lines of print sharpen up pretty fast, and I can keep pulling in.

Todd
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 12:33:15 PM by Todd Becker »

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2013, 01:21:36 PM »
As my myopia reduces my far point moves further away. If this happens as a result of the axial length shortening then the near point will also move further away. Are any of you with doing work to bring the near point in? It seems to me that it would be useful make a practice of moving print through the entire range that's in focus and pull the print at the near point in addition to pushing it at the far point.

As mentioned in my other recent posts, my right eye is 20/20 and my left eye is 20/40.  Otis  is correct that my right eye is better at distance vision and my left eye is better close up.  Otis calls this  "monovision", but my understanding is that monovision is more of a deliberate strategy of prescribing different lenses for right and left eye to force one eye to specialize on distance vision, the other on near vision. By contrast, the specialization of my two eyes was spontaneous, not deliberate or induced.   ("Monovision" is a curious term, since I don't experience any loss in three-dimensional depth perception).  

When I am looking at my cell phone or reading fine print, I can see clearly as close as 6 inches with my left eye, but only up to 10 inches with my right.  With both eyes open the stronger left eye takes over, so that's fine. While specialized vision has the advantage that I can cover the full range with both eyes, I'm still of a mind that I would like to maintain maximum flexibility for both eyes.  So I find myself winking the left eye shut to work on "print pulling" with just my right eye open. I often do this when reading my cell phone.

Winking one eye shut is tiring at first, but if you practice it over many days, you can get by with one eye shut for 5-10 minutes at a time.  I open the shut eye briefly every so often to keep it "awake"

Print pulling is just the inverse of print pushing -- doing your best to read at the edge of blur.  I find that the lines of print sharpen up pretty fast, and I can keep pulling in.

Todd

So if we're both pushing print at the far point and pulling print at the near point, how might the brain decide which way to change the shape of the eye? Will it make the eye longer in response to the print pulling, or will it make it shorter in response to the print pushing? Here's a possibility! The brain can recognize that the only way to satisfy the demands of both print pushing and print pulling (i.e., moving the far point out and the near point in), is to shorten the eye and increase the flexibility of the lens.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2013, 01:27:19 PM by johnlink »

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2013, 01:23:11 PM »
Otis, you quoted my question to you but you did not answer it. I'd be very grateful if you would please do so.

Otis, have you done any work to bring your near point in?

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2013, 05:05:13 PM »
Subject: Do I want to change both my "near point" and my "far point"?

Otis, the subject of this thread is "Anyone doing work to move the near point in?". I would be ever so grateful if would stay on topic and address that question.

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2013, 08:16:28 PM »
So if we're both pushing print at the far point and pulling print at the near point, how might the brain decide which way to change the shape of the eye? Will it make the eye longer in response to the print pulling, or will it make it shorter in response to the print pushing? Here's a possibility! The brain can recognize that the only way to satisfy the demands of both print pushing and print pulling (i.e., moving the far point out and the near point in), is to shorten the eye and increase the flexibility of the lens.

John,

At least in my case, the forces are acting differentially on two different eyes, not the same eye.  My right eye is slightly (not severely) myopic, so it is presumably somewhat elongated.  Good vision hygiene and occasional tune-ups with plus lenses work to shorten its axis.  My left eye has great distance vision, but is slightly (not severely) hyperopic, so presumably a bit foreshortened. My efforts at "print pulling" -- trying to read my iPhone with the right eye winked shut - should work to lengthen its axis.  

In other words, I want my left and right eyes to adjust in opposite directions.  So there is no conflict.

Now, for someone who is presbyopic in BOTH eyes, your question does raise an apparent dilemma.  If we believe that myopia and hyperopia are driven by the axial length of the eye, we would have a contradictory directive to both lengthen and shorten the axial length of the eye at the same time.  Can't be done.

Such presbyopia -- common in aging -- is often attributed to hardening of the crystalline lens, or the cilliarly muscle than contracts the lens.  If that is the case, the problem is not related to the axial length of the eye.  And I concur that this type of myopia or hyperopia probably is more common as we age.  

What to do about presbyopia that derives from hardening of the lens and cilliary muscles?  Probably vision exercises help, by stimulating the flexibility of the cilliary muscles. I don't know whether crystallinity of the lens can be addressed by exercises. It may relate in part to genetics, but also to diet and inflammation.  In my own experience, avoiding sugars and carbohydrates, consuming bioflavanoid rich vegetables and non-inflammatory fats, and limiting calories in general, has improved my visual acuity.  But I can't tell you that I have connected all the dots scientifically to establish a causal connection.  It's an open question.

Todd

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2013, 08:58:49 AM »
Todd, thank you for your thoughts on this subject.

Otis, earlier today I saw that you had posted in this thread a message that I found interesting and to which I was going to respond. Why did you delete it? Would you post it again?

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Anyone doing work to move the near point in?
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2013, 11:06:08 AM »
Technically - the issue of increasing the, "range of accommodation".

That's correct.

Quote
I think this is a worth-while goal.  But I do agree with some of the "text book" analysis of the eye on this subject.

For myself - I just want my "far point", to be positive.  By that I mean that I can read the 20/20 line - and then by using a +1/2 diopter lens - I can read 20/20 THROUGH the +1/2 diopter lens.  Thus my "far point" is at least +1/2 diopter.

Again by self-checking my "near point" is -1.0 diopters, because I can still read the 20/20 line THROUGH a -1.0 diopters.  I confirm this by reading my computer at 29 inches with no lens on - at all.

In terms of "value" - I do acknowledge that I place incredible value on that +1/2 diopter I have.  I have no problem with the wisdom of wearing a +1.0 diopter for reading my computer at 20 inches.  That is what I was thinking.


But wouldn't it be nice if you could read without lenses at a distance closer than 29 inches? In your earlier version of this post you said that our range of accommodation decreases as we age. People also think that we have to get stiffer generally as we age. I make my living as a Feldenkrais practitioner, helping people to stay limber as they age, so I presume the same can be done with our eyes, including the range of accommodation. So one of my goals is to increase my range of accommodation, which is currently about 3 diopters (from a near point of 6 diopters to a far point of about 3 diopters). Wouldn't that be something if I could move my far point out to 0 diopters (infinite focal length) while keeping my near point at 6 diopters (focal length of 6.5 inches), rather than having my near point move out to 3 diopters (focal length of 13 inches)? To do that I'd have to increase my range of accommodation from 3 diopters to 6 diopters. I'd be more than thrilled if I could move my far point out to 0 diopters (infinite focal length) while my near point moves out to 3 diopters, but if I can get reduce my myopia I figure I should also be able to increase my range of accommodation.