TLDR: Monovision (one eye corrected for distance, one for near) glasses, at either uncorrected or +2D over full correction in the non-dominant eye, slowed myopia progression in the non-dominant eye, but not in the dominant eye. After getting conventional lenses, the non-dominant eye progressed to catch up with the dominant eye after 9-18 months.
Interesting, although it refers to myopia progression, and not reversal, in growing eyes. This seems to contradict what I have seen in a lot of in the research, namely that undercorrection of myopia in children increases rather than slows down the progression of myopia in children. I doubt if there is anything useful here for adult myopes trying for axial shortening.
I guess the reason for faster myopia progression with undercorrection in children that they don’t want to see blur, it depresses them and they sit in front of PC/smartphone for hours. So was I, after new “sharper vision” 3 diopters down glasses the first thing I done in home, sit in front of my PC.
The other thing is myopic strain, when eye can’t compensate for Myopic defocus. That can aggravate myopia instead of reversing it. My SE (VD 0) went from about -7.5 to -9 in 12 months of using 3 D undercorrection glasses.
What is this study even? Who puts their children in a study where they go with 2d inbalance on purpose?
They should put their parents in this study. Monkeying with lenses is nothing compared to this.
Who puts their children in a study where they go with 2d inbalance on purpose?
Yeah, I don’t see the use of that, even if they were able to substantially slow down the progression of myopia in one eye, why would you give up binocular vision for that?
Just immagine for a moment driving behind somone who can see 20/20 in one eye and 20/100 in the other, gosh you’d better keep your safety distance
Monovision is not effective in reducing accommodation in juvenile myopia.
I don’t understand what they mean accommodation here. How is it not effective? The accommodation is the same with 2d difference? It is reducing accommodation in not used eye. Did they want to check if it reduces only in fully corrected eye? I’m missing sth here. Please let me know if you have some ideas.
You’re not likely to be driving behind me, but that is how I drive. I have perfectly decent depth perception, and I can actually read the 20/20 line better with both eyes than with my strong eye alone. Depending on where you live, it is perfectly legal to drive if you have only one eye as long as you meet the vision requirements.
‘Stricter standards are enforced for monocular vision in Germany and France, which require visual acuity of the better eye to be at least 0.6. In Spain and Italy, driving with monocular vision is normally not allowed.’
I have perfectly decent depth perception, and I can actually read the 20/20 line better with both eyes than with my strong eye alone.
EM students are the exception that proves the rule, if you know how much you can see and adjust your driving style accordingly it’s totally fine
Just saying that I wouldn’t undercorrect myself that way, doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
For instance, I play volleyball, and honestly I don’t think I would be able to avoid getting hit in the face if I had a 2D undercorrection in one eye
.25 or .50 binocular makes much more sense, but I guess that’s a big NONO for official optometry.
All these studies are not worth anything because they don’t check what a person is doing. And that goes back to why they are doing them in the first place. To find some universal cure that will be independent on habits. It’s not that monovision or anything really, protects against or not. It’s where you use it, that makes it successful or not. But they are not interested in habit angle, which is obvious based on how they conduct these studies.
My driving style is adjusted to the roads I drive on - rural, sinuous and with very little traffic - and I know them like the back of my hand. If I ever had to go on a freeway I would definitely wear glasses.
The research is split on this, but I’m finding more research saying defocus is protective than that it causes progression. The one that caused progression only used .75D defocus, so to much for the red/green difference to overcome, but not enough to reduce accommodation when reading. 1D defocus was protective, as was 2D monovision.
I think they were hoping that the kids would use only the near vision eye for reading, but instead they used both eyes, and the fully corrected eye had to use accommodation, which contributes to progression.
This is more to my liking. In my case a defocus of -6 and -3 over the course of 30 years probably did stop my myopia from progressing. It’s a pity I didn’t know about AF and how to stimulate it during these years…