achieving 20/20 night-time vision?

[caimanjosh]

Hi everyone -- this is my first forum post.  First, I guess I'll provide some background information so you have some idea of where I'm coming from.

I've been near-sighted since I was about 10 years old, and wearing glasses (at least some of the time...in recent years, I rarely wore them to use the computer or read, which now I'm quite thankful for).  My eye prescription, last time I had checked, was -3 (left eye), and _2.25 (right eye).  Last March (2013), I stumbled upon Todd's excellent post on improving vision.  Shortly thereafter, I stopped wearing my minus lenses, and bought some reading glasses to use for reading and computer work.  At first I started with +2 (right eye)/+1 (left eye), and then as I started to see improvement, gradually started increasing the power of the plus lenses.  I also printed out a Snellen chart and started testing myself regularly.  I believe I could read the 20/70 or maybe 20/60 line when i started, in good lighting.

As of this point, I've been very happy with my progress.  In bright light (when some direct sunlight is coming into the room with the Snellen, though not directly onto it), I can now read the 20/20 line.  Now, when I read (at a distance of perhaps 12-15 inches), I'm using glasses with power +3 (left)/+4 (right).  My sincere thanks to Todd for providing this life-changing information free to all. 

However, it seems that I could still stand to make more progress.  On dim days (say, an overcast winter day), that same Snellen is only readable to maybe the 20/40 line, and that just barely.  (If I try with my old prescription minus lenses, even in poor light, I can clear the 20/20 line.)  Night-time vision is even worse, maybe 20/50 or even a bit less. 
My question is, has anyone managed to achieve nearly perfect dim lighting/night-time vision?  Is this possible?  And what diopter rating for the plus lenses did you end up using (for reading, in decent/good light) in order to achieve this?  I would speculate that perhaps if I could read close-up text using +6 lenses, then I might achieve 20/20 night-time vision....but that's just a guess, really. 

Thanks and I look forward to hearing others' thoughts.

[Alex_Myopic]

@caimanjosh

Reading with +6D at ~16,6cm will make your convergence angle very big and maybe you can get neck or back pain. Blueberry can help with night vision but I don't know if this helps with the rods or with the cones vision. If you feel comfortable you can also read or view the computer with less light in order to lower the nerves threshold (more sensitive to light). Maybe if your success continues you can eve battle night myopia by doing the same things.

[OtisBrown]

Hi Josh,

Subject: Congratulations on "coming back" from -3 diotpers.

Item: According to almost all medical people - it is impossible to "come back" from -1 diopter.

Otis>  You are using a "comfortable" +3 at this time.  Stick with the "bright Snellen", it is all you need.  If you are not a pilot - you only need to pass the 20/40 line.

Josh>  My question is, has anyone managed to achieve nearly perfect dim lighting/night-time vision?  Is this possible?  And what diopter rating for the plus lenses did you end up using (for reading, in decent/good light) in order to achieve this?  I would speculate that perhaps if I could read close-up text using +6 lenses, then I might achieve 20/20 night-time vision....but that's just a guess, really. 

Otis> You said March 2013.  That is AMAZING PROGRESS.  To be conservative, I suggest "improvement" at about +1 diopter per year. My suggest is this, to just "keep" Snellen 20/20, you need to continue wearing the +3, and be very patient.  It takes a long time to do better-than 20/20 (and from -3 diopters, at that).

Otis> It also takes long-term motivation, that few can tolerate.  For pilots starting at -1 diopters (about 20/50), they do exceed the 20/20 line, and I mean they can read that 20/20 line THOUGH a +1 diopter lens.  (That is "plus reserve" that is necessary for 20/13 vision.)  It will take another year for you to get there - if that is your goal.  But you have everything you could ever desire.  You need  no minus lens - in your life.  Here are the remarks of a pilot who took that "step" to 20/15 vision, and good night vision.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/usaf2020.txt

Otis> The only person who can certify this degree of success, is the person who can read the 20/20 line though that plus lens.  Just keep on wearing it.

[caimanjosh]

Alex,

Thanks for the ideas.  I've also thought about trying to read under low light conditions, wondering if perhaps that will help.  Are you fairly sure that doing so would be different than just using a stronger plus lens and reading under brighter light?  I do notice that using my reading glasses to read under relatively low light conditions is quite a lot more challenging. 

Also, when I referred to using +6 lenses, I didn't mean I'd get closer to use them.  I was just referring to doing "more of the same" -- slow increments in diopters, working my way up as my vision slowly improves.  Typically I seem to be able to go up half a diopter maybe every 3 months or so, while reading at the same distance.

Otis -- thanks for the encouragement!  I do still want to continue to improve my vision, though.  When I drive at night, I don't feel that my vision is up to par, so I end up using my old minus lenses.  I'd like to eliminate their use in that scenario as well.  (I live in New York City and don't own a car, though, so I drive only a couple of times a year.)  Daytime driving I don't need to wear glasses, unless the weather is exceptionally poor (like if ti's dark and rainy). 

[Alex_Myopic]

Alex,

Are you fairly sure that doing so would be different than just using a stronger plus lens and reading under brighter light?

Also, when I referred to using +6 lenses, I didn't mean I'd get closer to use them. 

It would be too blur for you (emmetropic now) to read with +6 further than 16,6cm. If you use the for just seeing at home then there is some research that +6 (worn to see beyond the blur zone) gives to much defocus that the eye gives up it's focusing mechanism and may become more myopic.

Mr Otis Brown has written that a refractive state of +0,75D is the ideal (also for night myopia). So if you manage to just read the Snellen 20/20 with +0,75 lenses on it would be ideal. Too much hypermetropia can lead to amblyopia.

Beside that there is no proof or telling that when you make the blur zone smaller with heavier plus you have more good results than plus at normal distances of reading or seeing the computer.

[Hekzzz]

Hey, what's your distance to the edge of focus without glasses now? Just to have a more or less measure of how much dioptres are your vision at...

[caimanjosh]

Hey, what's your distance to the edge of focus without glasses now? Just to have a more or less measure of how much dioptres are your vision at...

I'm not precisely sure, but I just tested reading that post on my monitor from about 4 feet, and it was clearly legible.  I was stopped by the wall from reading from any further back.  I would imagine maybe 5-6 feet to read these posts? 

[Alex_Myopic]

If I don't have +0,75D lenses to check for 20/20 with lenses on the what is the equivalent (if the retina is good) in the Snellen diagram in order to be in a refractive state of +0,75D? Is it 20/15 or 20/13 without glasses?

[CapitalPrince]

an OD "defines" positive refractive state if you can see through a plus lens without blur and a OD "defines" a negative refractive state if you have anything less than max visual acuity, however sharp you can see.
So essentially they can give a prescription to just about anyone.

But here 20/20 means 0D refractive state. And +0.75D in my opinion is 20/13. But there is almost no difference between 20/15 or 20/13

[Alex_Myopic]

Thanks for the answer CapitalPrince.

[caimanjosh]

Are you fairly sure that doing so would be different than just using a stronger plus lens and reading under brighter light?

I think TomLu's thread answered one of my questions here.  Based on the research he found, it seems the best approach to improving vision -- including even night-time vision -- would be to read in bright sunlight using a challenging plus lens.  Reading in dim light, even with a plus lens, appears likely to be less effective.  Granted, most of this research was done with animals, but I imagine the overall principles are the same. 

[OtisBrown]

Caiman -
FIRST: Congratulations on your incredible success.

Caiman> As of this point, I've been very happy with my progress.  In bright light (when some direct sunlight is coming into the room with the Snellen, though not directly onto it), I can now read the 20/20 line.  Now, when I read (at a distance of perhaps 12-15 inches), I'm using glasses with power +3 (left)/+4 (right).  My sincere thanks to Todd for providing this life-changing information free to all. 

Otis>  With proven 20/20 (read 1/2 the letters correctly) you are successful.

Otis> If you wish to "go further", then continue using bright light on your Snellen.  But do this:  Get a +1/2 diopter lens, and keep on "working", until you can read the 20/20 line THOUGH a +1/2 diopter lens.  (Or perhaps +3/4 diopter).

Otis>  This means another six months of "plus wearing", and persistence.

Otis> You (we) need a standard-Snellen, to continue to do your own checking.  I hope you continue.  If you can't get a +1/2, you can use a +1 (from drug store) to check this also.

Otis> What an incredible success you are!

[CapitalPrince]

sunlight can greatly increase the depth of field. In sunlight my vision in 20/15 but in poor weather/lighting my vision is 20/25-20/30.

perfect vision "emmetropia" is actually reading the 20/20 through a +1D lens, this is 20/10+ vision (or whatever your max visual acuity is), and perfect night vision. I remember when i had that vision, before high school, life was good.

I find its always ambiguous when someone says their vision is 20/20. Most peoples eyesight with glasses is MUCH better than 20/20.  And most children have MUCH better than 20/20 vision.

The frauenfeld claims that many people have been able to return to 20/10 vision. Theoretically its possible. Probably very very very few people were able to return their vision from 20/40 to perfect. but  you really have to "get busy" with the plus for years since the eyes go down very slowly.

As long as you feel your improvements in your everyday life and you feel your vision is very comfortable in all lightning that is success rather than worry about v/a on a snellen.

[Myoctim]

perfect vision "emmetropia" is actually reading the 20/20 through a +1D lens, this is 20/10+ vision (or whatever your max visual acuity is), and perfect night vision. I remember when i had that vision, before high school, life was good.

That would mean hyperopia being emmetropia?

I guess +0,5D should be enough to work as a buffer for 20/10 but not everyone also having a retina good enough for that optical resolution.
Furthermore, besides that common known astigmatism there also are some other high order aberrations which all need to be pretty small for achieving that super vision.

So even having that refractive state doesn't necessarily meen getting to 20/10

[CapitalPrince]

Hi myoticm,

You probably don't believe me but if a person can ONLY read the 20/20 (no lines above lines above that) with abit of focusing/squinting that is actually fairly POOR vision. 20/10 (or whatever your max visual acuty is, but most max v/a is between 20/15-20/8) is not superhuman vision, it is "normal vision".

Almost everyone has a good enough retina to exceed the 20/20.

An OD "defines" refractive state as the lens needed to reach max visual acuity. People in this forum "define" refractive state as the lens needed to clear the 20/20 line.
A borderline 20/20 probably takes about a -0.5 to -1D to have PERFECT vision. But since it is 20/20, some people believe that it should be 0D or "emmetropia".

you decide if you want max visual acuity to mean hyperopic or emmetropic. As long as your vision "feels" comfortable none of this really matters.