User

In June 2015, I started with cm measurements suggesting -2 R and -2.5 L (50, 40 cm). I learned active focus very quickly and I used my old -1.5 R -1.75 L glasses as normalized (0 differential because I never used glasses for close-up) and quickly reduced to my old -1 R -1.25 L, as I saw the cm measurements go to -1.75 R -2 L within 2 weeks, but it plateaued, probably because of what I did next. I also noticed it was hard to sleep on days with significant change in cm, almost as if the changes acted like stimulants like caffeine. Because the diopter gap seemed to get smaller, I thought that I could tolerate large unbalanced focal plane changes quickly, so I went to -1 to equalize, and then I went to -0.75 and later -0.5 for extra stimulus, since that supposedly helps to break a plateau. I also messed up focus pushing by being too far away. I didn't know how to measure, so I ended up measuring two different values with and without AF, which were steadily suggesting -1.8 R -2 L with AF to -1.5 R -1.7 L (about 0.3 D AF capacity). It would explain the -1.5 reading from the optometrist with a 6m chart resulting in refractive errors of -1.33 R and -1.53 L, which round up to -1.5.

After a few days with -1.25 and working near the edge of blur of my left eye (where both eyes see a clear image, checking peridically to make sure my left eye sees a clear image) and a 10 min of patching per day, and insomnia, today, the polyopia fused completely, and with the -1.25, it felt like I could clear up almost anything with AF, almost like magic. If what EndMyopia says is true (my eyes already returned to the correct axial length, and it's just recalibration), it would explain the eye strain of convergence and accommodation when I was close to the screen. On a bright Snellen chart, I could barely read the 20/15 line with the -1.25, but the 20/12 line was unreadable. My centimeter measurements to fully fuse suggest -1.75 R -1.65 L (57 cm L, 60 cm R, where the unfusable polyopia starts), which is interesting if that implies I can read 20/15 at -0.4 D defocus, while I know that full or overcorrection generally lets me read 20/13, 20/10, and maybe 20/8 (probably not) but not 20/6.

I had pseudomyopia and probably could read 20/50 uncorrected. My parents took me to an interesting optometrist, who said it was near strain and that I should get reading glasses for near work. My parents wore minus lenses and thought they were the way (they are definitely not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P31z2qbErpc da wae]), so the optometrist gave me glasses reduced by -0.25 D (from -1.5/-1.25 to -1.25/-1, which were probably still overprescribed after the reduction) and told me not to use it except for distance. When I first wore the glasses, I felt uncomfortable, but the optician said that "I'll get used to it".

One year later, my uncorrected acuity dropped to about 20/100 (because I used the overcorrecting glasses and lacked critical information known as active focus). The optometrist measured the same -1.5/-1.25, but I felt my uncorrected vision was subjectively much worse. When I got my driver's license, I failed the visual acuity test without glasses and have to wear lenses.

Two years later, my parents switched optometrists because the location was more convenient. The optometrist measured -0.5 D higher and was reluctant to reduce by 0.25 D but still did it, and recommended me to use glasses all of the time.

My parents went back to the same location, with a different optometrist, and she increased the diopter gap between eyes and added cylinder. When I wore the glasses, which are polycarbonate instead of Trivex, I saw lots of distortion and [[chromatic aberration]]. Fortuitously, while I was researching chromatic aberration in lens materials and whether it has something to do with polycarbonate or the cylinder, I found an endmyopia article about that topic and decided to give it a shot by using my old glasses as normalized. For this reason, I wrote about technical details of diopters and combining cylinders with different axes, in case it'll help someone find this place. I now know that CR39 plastic and Trivex are acceptable, but polycarbonate is garbage.

I'll focus push/pull this morning because it's bright, but later today, I'll probably focus push/pull much less aggressively than I did over the last 5 days. While 0.06-0.07 D/day was possible for me, the cost of the side effect (too much stimulation and insomnia) is too high. My left eye did go from -2 to -1.75 in just 5 days,  but at the cost of not being able to sleep this week. I'll rest a bit before I AF a lot again.

My vision is actually much better than average: high acuity (20/15 seems to be average, but I expect 20/10 or 20/8), fast visual cortex recalibration (0.5D/week) and tolerance (I was able to tolerate more focal plane changes than EM advises: I could tolerate and adapt to a 0.75 D change in left eye and 0.5 D change in right eye, but failed to accept a 1.5 D left eye and 1 D right eye change), and high accommodation ability (seeing my ability drop from about +25 D = 4 cm to +17 D = 6 cm does make me worry about future presbyopia, although 25 D for a 19-year-old and 17 D for a 25-year-old are above the average "10 D for a young child"). My vision isn't all that great though: they say I'm not colorblind, but I find some blue/black colors are hard to distinguish.

As I'm a perfectionist, I will know that I'm done when my refraction reaches 0. I expect, with uncorrected vision, 20/8 (or at least 20/10) in a bright Snellen and 20/15 on a dim Snellen. To reach that, I will possibly use a +0.25 to focus on a Snellen chart from 6m, inducing up to 0.083 D of hyperopia, or possibly outside to induce up to 0.25 D of hyperopia, which the emmetropization process will get rid of after I stop using them. I wonder if the +0.25 is even necessary, if I can AF to 0 D with emmetropization. As a young child, I remember being to recognize people's faces from about 70 to 150m away, which will eventually be possible for me again.