Up-down eye movement for corneal WTR astigmatism

Could it help / any success stories?

Mine is corneal: 2 D x 180 R, 1.5 D x 170 L.
I’m 16 years old.

1 Like

In theory, it should. But I don’t know of anyone who really went into the details to study this. Especially, people either concentrate on the power of cylinder lens worn, or on the eye movement, while realistically, the combination of both should matter.

Sooo… another case of “good question, unfortunately nobody has a satisfying answer.”

Also, are those plus diopters? It’s not WTR if you have plus cylinder with horizontal axis; WTR is horizontal axis of minus cylinder. And also you wouldn’t be myopic then. Are you sure these numbers aren’t missing the sign?

My corneal power according to autorefractokeratometer is +43 D, with extra +2 D at axis 180 at right eye, +1.5 D at axis 170 at left eye (oh yes, vertical meridian, but that machine showed me something like that, doctor don’t give me back that paper, only allowed to see once).

So, my autorefraction is at VD 13.75 as follows:
R -9.25 -3.00 175
L -9.75 -1.25 170 (not sure though I remember correctly)

After mydriatic:
R -9.00 -2.00 175
L -9.75 -1.25 170

That translates into contact lens Rx:
R -8.00 -2.00 180 (used cyl -1.75)
L -8.25 -1.50 170 (used -8.50 -1.25)

I still have a uncorrected cylinder remaining, and it is very boring for me, I getting tired quickly, so…

Tried one hour stimulus with conscious focus, small improvements may be visible, but… after close up all goes worse again.

Also, it’s likely going to be a habit like AF, or some exercise?

That’s a lot of myopia. I could imagine that the glasses at this power interfere with the eyes’ ability to calibrate cylinder. If you look through them just a bit sideways on average, the induced cylinder from the angle alone becomes significant. Chances to deal with this should be a lot better after reducing the overall error.

I use contact lenses: -8.5-1.25L and -8-1.75R, comfilcon A.
Still getting uncorrected astigmatism, maybe -0.5 cyl or so.

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but @Varakari Brings up an excellent point. So many of your recent questions are about cylinder when you have a huge amount of sphere.

Why don’t you work on that for a year or two, and see if it resolves or if you’re in a better place to work on the astigmatism?

Day after day, thinking about these things is doing you no good. Especially since you claim it’s corneal and thus untreatable.

1 Like

What do you mean by untreatable?
It’s not my claim, but I passed keratometry and machine showed corneal astigmatism.

This doesn’t necessarily follow. The eye may be using ways to put stress on the cornea to get it into a more even shape. In rhesus monkey experiments, astigmatism could be lens-induced, albeit the results were not a straightforward adaptation to the parameters of the lenses.

In Forrest’s writings, there are also some wild cases of multi-diopter changes in astigmatism depending on things like head posture. So while it’s not obvious how to get rid of astigmatism, I’d be careful about absolute claims on the topic. In my research on eye stories, I’ve also come across a number of spuriously vanishing astigmatisms, sometimes following eye exercises, sometimes with keratometry outputs that did indeed change.

Jake says that astigmatism of the people he works with tends to get better as myopia decreases, so that’s also a reason for optimism. In this case, the SE is about -9, which is about three millimeters of elongation. These eyes are quite deformed, which might be messing with the forces on the cornea. It wouldn’t be too weird if the astigmatism changed with the overall eye shape.


I definitely agree, having recently been diagnosed with “corneal [ubtreatable]” astigmatism–which I’ve seen both reduce and change axis.

1 Like

What if I have 2-3 D of ciliary spasm?
I think yes, still. My accommodation range is too poor I think, only 8-9 D or so.

Also SE does not mean elongation: usually elongation equals the weakest (less myopic) corneal meridian.
In my case it is 43 D (not sure though) with 45 (if +2 at 90 degrees?) strongest (most myopic) meridian.

I am still hoping that my elongation is ~2 mm, and even might not correspond for high myopia (if -5.75 D real myopia or so, -6 D is also not high, but -6.25 and more).

On the contrary, all these degenerative changes. Really a bunch of those oftentimes can’t occur at such (-5, -6) myopia numbers. But, also have spine problems, these also can worsen eye blood supply I think.

Now think it is really 3 mm elongated.
I found a some point in my eyeball, when I press it, my astigmatism going away, but… I must read closer.

When my cornea is 43x45, and I make it 44 diopters, assuming average is 42.5, each 1 mm of elongation could add 0.5 D to corneal power.

But I had some clear flashes of first row at distances farther than 20/1000, so the hypothesis about spasm still may persist.

I am @miffiffi’s successor, so why do I not?

Bc I’m think my corneal astigmatism is due to vertical recti weakness. And it is also the reason I can’t Active Focus thus effectively lower sphere, my ophthalmologist said I only should have only 6-7 diopters of axial myopia bc my eyeball length is 27.12/27.26 mm R/L. I personally think I have -6.25 axial myopia as in such rx I see clear image surrounded with large shadows and double images differentiable only at night. My new normalised contact lenses are -7 but neither -7 nor -6.25 give me ideal vision.

Cylinder lenses only make vertical recti muscles weaker and weaker, also causing terrible torsion

I don’t think amounts of CA have correlation to AL.
There are people -2 and 3 astig as well as -15 and zero astig.

Also corneal SE theory seem to be dubious, bc corneal SE is too unstable.
Afaik from clinical science, there are people with very long eyes have 40 diopters cornea as well as emmetropes with 46+ D cornea. Axial myopia value = weakest meridian (at least in my case). Yes, corneal SE theory is widespread, but I personally find it dubious, as I already mentioned.

Not necessarily 3 mm of elongation I think. Doctor said that my eyes are +3 mm, but she said there is 6-7 D of myopia, not 9. Doctor confused me though since she told me at first consultation that 1 mm = 6 D, and at the second she told it is 2D, not 6.

Also I crossed -7.5 (opto confirmed) and sometimes I see clearly in -7. No AF though.

PS I am sorry for possible rudeness @Varakari , edited my post, I have some degenerations of my English :wink:

Can someone define which astigmatism
is considered “with the rule”? I hate rules as much as the next guy!

Is that the one where vertical lines are sharper / things appear skinnier and taller than they actually are?


WTR = 150-30 axis -, 60-120 axis +

Generally saying, yes.

Depending. I noticed for the first time, that plates appear slightly longer horizontally than vertically.

But some things appear vice versa (squares).

PS Why do you hate me?

What do you mean?
Do you refer to this?

If yes, hate something as much as the next guy just means something like to hate something just like everyone hates it or so. :wink:


Mine is axis 175 OS and 180 OD. Mostly verticals are clearest, although I think OD may be changing around to closer to 160 or less these days.

I do note a marked visual difference in the appearance of a fixed rectangular or square object in each eye, but as I work to reduce the astigmatism, this difference diminishes.



Maybe axes does change due to fundus torsion thus it changes only to outside world.

Wow, mine axes are the same :wink: Also, left has a tendency to shift to 150-165, and right to 5-15. I just use 180 for both eyes and my life is easier :slight_smile:

But I would like to know: do you see torsion when look max up or down? I see.

I don’t, but I do see change in the visual image as I move my eyes around. It’s one of the things I practice. I have a card with fusion circles, and I keep the third circle fused (convergence and divergence) as I move it up, down, left, and right.