User:User

For some reason, my forum account was banned right after it was created without reason. If it had not, I would have posted the following introduction:

0.25 D/week! Fixed blur adaptation in a few days

The title is not clickbait! I actually changed at that rate, excluding the years of blur adaptation.

After 6 years of slow progress because I partially read the site and didn't understand the small details well enough, I finally reviewed the concepts in depth and fixed my mistakes. As Jake says, if you reduce too quickly or improperly, "you accumulate debt with your visual cortex, that you’ll have to pay eventually", which I seem to have repaid in the last few days.

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.

Over 6 years, there was no blur anymore and I got better at clearing the polyopia ("double vision" is actually "multiple vision"), but I could never clear it completely. Even in late 2015, without glasses, I even once had a clear flash that let me see small text on a sunny outdoor sign 80m away that I estimate corresponds to 20/8 acuity, but it was very short and hard to reproduce. I then got lazy and recorded cm measurements more rarely, but they show a measly +0.05 D change over the last 6 years.

This week, I decided to fix the issues. Based on the measurements, it makes sense to use -1.25 (AF blur horizon from 133 cm to 222cm) or -1.5 (AF blur horizon from 2m to 10m) normalized to equalize properly. -1 puts the -1.6 D target too close to be usable, as AF requires full clarity, or else it's undercorrected. Since I'm either indoors or would get extra depth of field from sunlight, -1.25 seemed to make more sense.

Current normalized: -1.25 Current differential: 0

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.

Is it now time to reduced normalized to -1 (Peak Prescription, which I assume means 0.25 lower normalized) for more stimulus, even though I only used -1.25 for a few days, or should I stay with it for a while to prevent issues related to reducing too quickly? Later in the day, I lost that ability to clear up everything, and I saw some imperfections on distant objects, so I guess I need to stay at -1.25 normalized until those resolve, despite having 20/15 acuity.

History with Glasses

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 (even though they are not 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.

My parents switched optometrists yet again. In 2018, the autorefractor measured -1.5 spherical equivalent with some cylinder. The optometrist measured -1.5 spherical for both eyes and recommended using it for distance only, confirming that either the previous prescription was ridiculous (which is true) or that reduction is possible (which is also true).

Next Day

I decided to switch to -1 normalized anyway.

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 0.07 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.

My vision is actually much better than average: high acuity, and fast visual cortex recalibration and ability to tolerate and adapt to a 0.75 D change in left eye and 0.5 D change in right eye (although failing to accept a 1.5 D left eye and 1 D right eye change).

My driver's license renewal is coming up soon, and I'll be sure to re-take the visual acuity test and have the lenses condition removed.