Author Topic: Accommotrac Vision Trainer  (Read 5794 times)

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« on: February 28, 2013, 06:18:40 AM »
Have any of you used the Accommotrac Vision Trainer? A friend of mine told me last night that some years ago she made substantial progress using it, going from 20/200 to about 20/50.

http://www.accommotrac.com/Accommotrac_Vision_Trainer/AVT.html

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2013, 10:08:56 AM »
Hi John,

Yes, I have heard of the "Accommotrack".  It is an expensive machine - as you can understand.  The treatments are therefore expensive also.  But going from 20/200 to 20/50 is wonderfull.  It shows that MANY OF these methods are effective.  But at 20/50, you can avoid the minus, and make it to 20/20 - in my opinion.  That does not cost anything at all.

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 03:07:59 PM »
Have any of you used the Accommotrac Vision Trainer? A friend of mine told me last night that some years ago she made substantial progress using it, going from 20/200 to about 20/50.

http://www.accommotrac.com/Accommotrac_Vision_Trainer/AVT.html

The first OD I went to in order to enquire about it, indicated it was $150 / 45 minute session.  I didn't try it.

Later on I went to a behavioral optometrist that also had one, and after I had been doing regular vision training sessions I asked about the accomotrac.  The OD said the machine currently needed to be repaired.  I told the OD that I had read other behavioral optometrists question its value, thinking that other methods were more effective.  OD suggested there was value in the capabilities of the machine.

OD did however state that it was expensive to repair.  Would have had to ship it to Joseph Trachtman, the inventor, for him to fix it. 

So I guess not only is it expensive to use, Trachtman makes it expensive to repair as well. 

I think it's been around for a while though, and so the patent he has on it surely must be expired or close to expiring.  It would be nice if others made a cost effective knock off - I would buy one for home use!  :-)  I had hoped to have tried it but it didn't work out.  And I wasn't about to pay $150 for 45 minutes.   Apparently Trachtman controlled its distribution and had very strong restrictions on where you could provide service with it.

Offline Hillyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2013, 08:11:28 AM »
I did the Accommotrac training with Trachtman himself in the early 1990s.  It was $80/hr back then. I had a small improvement in my diopter reading (an old pair of glasses suddenly seemed to provide clear vision again), but the effects were not permanent. I went to multiple weekly sessions, something in the order of 15-20.

The biofeedback training is very subtle and it required being able to sense during the session what you (unconsciously) had to do to get the machine to indicate that there was some ciliary relaxation.  On a once a week schedule, there was no way to  consistently practice--and confirm--that physiological "trick" in your eyes once you leave the session.  Compare this with the "working the blur" approach where with the right plus-lenses, you can practice many times during the day and at no cost with the best biofeedback system there is for your vision: your own eyes.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 01:43:43 PM by Hillyman »

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2013, 08:32:51 AM »
Thank you, Hillyman, for your post. I very much like your comparison of the Accommotrac Vision Trainer to the working-the-blur approach.

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2013, 10:41:51 AM »
I did the Accommotrac training with Trachtman himself in the early 1990s.  It was $80/hr back then. I had a small improvement in my diopter reading (an old pair of glasses suddenly seemed to provide clear vision again), but the effects were not permanent. I went to multiple weekly sessions, something in the order of 15-20.

The biofeedback training is very subtle and it required being able to sense during the session what you (unconsciously) had to do to get the machine to indicate that there was some ciliary relaxation.  On a once a week schedule, there was no way to  consistently practice--and confirm--that physiological "trick" in your eyes once you leave the session.  Compare this with the "working the blur" approach where with the right plus-lenses, you can practice many times during the day and at no cost with the best biofeedback system there is for your vision: your own eyes.

Thanks for your feedback.  I have heard behavioral optometrists also express that it was expensive and that there were other more effective ways to achieve the same effects.  My one-time behavioral optometrist sat on his accomtrac trainer which needed service, but Trachtman made it so expensive to repair.  He suggested to me that he found some value in it, as another tool in the arsenal of vision training when I suggested another behavioral optometrist he knew had said it was not very effective.  One would assume, that the "invention" is off patent protection by now, prices would have dropped.  I have heard that some optometrists have sold them on ebay, again an indication of its effectiveness.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 10:43:57 AM by peterg »

Offline johnlink

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2013, 10:48:34 AM »
I have heard that some optometrists have sold [accomtrac trainers] on ebay

I would love to have one, although I don't know what I'd be willing to pay.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2013, 04:06:03 PM »
Dear Peter G.,

Subject: A true and honest "sticking point".

I know that at $80, a person is going to ask the question - will this process get me to 20/20 vision, from -7.0 diopters.  If the answer is that you can only get to -5 diopters, (best case) then it would be hard to recommend 20 weeks of this "Accommotrack" training.  You would still be unable to read the 20/100 line with no lens.  Yes, I would agree that it is ineffective, and not worth $1,600 for that 2 diopter change.  I could not recommend it.

In my judgment CRT (Ortho-K) is in the same "boat", $2,000 per year.  But at least CRT produces naked-eye 20/20 vision.

In fact I would agree that "plus-prevention" is similar, except you verify results yourself, and the cost is nothing.

But those are the issues John Link - and all of us - should be reviewing.  I always enjoy the conversation.

Otis


I did the Accommotrac training with Trachtman himself in the early 1990s.  It was $80/hr back then. I had a small improvement in my diopter reading (an old pair of glasses suddenly seemed to provide clear vision again), but the effects were not permanent. I went to multiple weekly sessions, something in the order of 15-20.

The biofeedback training is very subtle and it required being able to sense during the session what you (unconsciously) had to do to get the machine to indicate that there was some ciliary relaxation.  On a once a week schedule, there was no way to  consistently practice--and confirm--that physiological "trick" in your eyes once you leave the session.  Compare this with the "working the blur" approach where with the right plus-lenses, you can practice many times during the day and at no cost with the best biofeedback system there is for your vision: your own eyes.

Thanks for your feedback.  I have heard behavioral optometrists also express that it was expensive and that there were other more effective ways to achieve the same effects.  My one-time behavioral optometrist sat on his accomtrac trainer which needed service, but Trachtman made it so expensive to repair.  He suggested to me that he found some value in it, as another tool in the arsenal of vision training when I suggested another behavioral optometrist he knew had said it was not very effective.  One would assume, that the "invention" is off patent protection by now, prices would have dropped.  I have heard that some optometrists have sold them on ebay, again an indication of its effectiveness.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 04:32:53 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2013, 05:33:20 PM »
I have heard that some optometrists have sold [accomtrac trainers] on ebay

I would love to have one, although I don't know what I'd be willing to pay.

You're in New York where Trachtman practices.  I would see if you can get a quick demonstration or alternatively ask for half a session.

Offline Hillyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2013, 07:38:38 PM »
The last I heard, Trachtman was in Seattle. Actually that's the address listed on the www.accomotrac.com website.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 07:43:05 PM by Hillyman »

Offline Hillyman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Accommotrac Vision Trainer
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2013, 01:59:26 PM »
Just another note on my experience with the Accommotrac Vision Trainer (AVT). The website accommotrac.com shows a picture of the machine, and this reminded of the following if I recall correctly:

The biofeedback training is 30 minutes long, and consisted of periods of 5 minutes or so on the machine, and then rest of a few minutes and then continuing again. The setup is similar to the machine in an optometrist's office where you rest your chin in a frame and you place your eye in front of a light-projector-type of lens.

You look into the machine one eye at a time--there is no binocular training. You are not actually looking at any thing or any image, just a comfortable field of light (not too bright, not too dim). The challenge is to get the machine to indicate by a tone that there is an accommodative relaxation as measured by the machine, so this is what I mean by the physiological "trick". You have to identify one way or another something that you are doing that has led this relaxation response. So it's a kinesthetic sensory exploration, confirmed by an auditory signal, that something is happening in your visual system, one eye at a time. Quite a tag-team system, if you think about it!

As I said, the effects I had--there was some improvement in my diopter reading, something in the order of 0.25 to 0.50--did not last. One big factor is that once the session ends, there is no feedback system at hand that you can practice with. The AVT approach also did not break me out of that myope's mindset of "fearing the blur"--that the blur is just another sign that the eyes are always getting worse, and I continued to be passive in my seeing and expecting (and not getting) improvement. In contrast, having been following the plus-lens system the past 4-6 weeks or so, I find that this new regimen encourages a different relationship between one's eyes and the world: rather than waiting for and expecting sharp vision to come in at all times as with glasses, the plus-lens mindset encourages working with the blur--one seeks the blur as a chance to "get out there more" and make progress. It's more holistically correct, I think, and it's very exciting.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 08:01:44 AM by Hillyman »