Talk:Blind spot (vision)

It's

It's taken approximately 6 trips back to my Optometrist., and $850.00 for two pair of glasses that I can't see out of for my Dr. to figure out, I have a "blind spot" in my right eye. I have given the glasses back for a full refund and he has made an appointment for me to see some other kind of Dr.(???). Can anything be done so that I can see clear out of my right eye? The glasses don't work for upclose or distance. I wear reading glasses from Walgreens but still can't see distance. I struggle everyday with my work and driving. I am 47 yrs. old and otherwise in good health. After reading online about "the blind spot", I see no purpose in going to this "other" Dr. Any suggestions???? this is stupid

See scotoma. Everyone has vdddf vallthe blind spot, but this should not be perceived by you at all. If you are having problems with your vision, that is not the blind spot but another blind spot (scotoma) that has developed in your eye. Also I would advise you not to ask for medical advice on Wikipedia; you're likely to wait forever or run into a crank. I suggest the WebMD forums. — coelacan talk — 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

table problem

Would someone please do whatever it takes to get the "See also" section out of the table? Better still, could someone replace the table by an image? Use the "Blind spot" external link for inspiration. Thanks. --Ujm 07:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Got the table fixed. I'm not going to make an image though. The A O X text worked fine for me when I tested it. — coelacan talk — 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

my eyes hurt....... and it didnt workKiran90 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Worked fine for me. Trippy, man. --Nuggit 08:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

no the table IS a problem. different screen resolutions and maximised/unmaximised browser windows means that the X might fall outside the 20 dgree axis shift of the blind spot... come on guys, put a static pic there ;-)

the table definitely is a problem for people with wide screens. i found this picture but i dont know how to upload pictures to wikipedia. if someone could add it to replace the table that would be great. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/gifs/blindspot1bw.gif here is where the image came from(quite a useful site by the way http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.148.124 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It sort of worked for me, the 0 faded away but didn't vanish. FinalWish 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An image offers no advantage over a table. A table can be given a fixed width if desired. Both a table and an image will change in actual size depending on the monitor resolution. Finally, I have a widescreen monitor, and it worked just fine. — Chameleon 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

Is the comment about "proof" of evolution really necessary? Seems irrelevant to the article. 69.158.4.144 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What was taken out: The existence of the blind spot in vertebrate eyes is the basis of one argument in support of the theory of evolution, in that a perfect God would not create an "imperfect" eye. Yeah... irrelevant. Good call. Makes ya think though. --Nuggit 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The blind spot was "Designed" by the Invisible_Pink_Unicorn (Peace Be Unto Her) on purpose to remind you heathens of the wrath of God. :p Sasank (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s not irrelevant. It’s very important information about the eye. Or at least it would be if it were true. The fact is that a slight imperfection in something does not prove evolution or gods. Both religion and science are consistent with there being flaws. (Science explains the processes by which they developed, and religion says ‘it is the will of the gods that it be so.’) — Chameleon 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It worked 4 me too .. really amazing. -Vishal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.165.61 (talk) 06:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Test doesn't belong here

We're not a guide on how to find a blind spot in your eye nor is wikipedia here to provide a test for doing so. --Crossmr 06:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the test is quite useful. Its very simple and lets you check what a blind spot is immediately. And why is wikipedia not a guide? I will revert the test back unless there is a better explanation as to why it should not be here. --Sasank (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I now know a lot more about the blind spot. IMO it's a vital part of the page. 84.230.103.185 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The test convinced me completely about the blind spot, and agree that it is vital. Zevilz (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The test should me mentioned somewhere, in a separate article or in this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.38.20.184 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is almost pointless without the demonstration. (It’s not a ‘test’ — everyone has a blind spot, so you can’t pass or fail this.) — Chameleon 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fun tests and information that can be gleaned?

So...if you follow the instructions but move your eye left and right relative to your screen you will notice that if you go far enough to the left or right, the O reappears. From this left-right darkness zone distance (helps to have a friend with a ruler held in front of your head), your eye's distance from the screen, and the distance between the X and the O on the screen, you can compute the diameter of the hole in your retina where the optic nerve inserts!!! You can also measure the size of the hole by having a friend help you measure the onscreen blindness circle's diameter.

I really think this should be mentioned in the article along with calculations. Furthermore, this blind spot allows for an excellent opportunity to find out how neural adaption works to fill in the hole. Conscious information appears to be useless. It seems to just continue lines and match color. Anybody experimented with complicated images larger than the blind circle's diameter on the screen in place of the "O" to see what their brain fills in? Meowist (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest psuedoscience edits to this page?

I have serious reservations about the last edits to this page [[1]] but do not have the time to fully research it out or refute it.

The ideas that the blind spot can be related to brain health or that it can be corrected at all with light, spinal adjustments, or anything else when it is simply a matter of geometry of where the optical nerve splits and inverts to form the retina, are ridiculous. The webpages and books used as references reek of pseudoscience, and in particular the Jennetics page was last updated on Jun 2 and includes a link to this wikipedia page (which had also had all the questionable material added on Jun 2), which makes me think that this page is being used to provide false information to support the (bogus, imo) information on the Jennetics page. Kjl (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the pseudoscience tag

It is interesting that this discussion started off with a person with a question related to what seems to be an extensive "blind spot". Vision encompasses more than just the eyes, as that person had found out. It also includes the occipital lobes of the brain and the temporal and parietal regions in the association cortex via Meyer's loops (see [2]). These areas enable the interpretation and integration of occular inputs into how a person is able to operate in his/her environment.

This means that yes the blind spot does relate to the geometry of the eye. Kjl is right about that. But that is not the whole story. Blind spots are also related to “functional” aspects of the brain. The Carrick in a peer reviewed journal showed that chiropractic spinal adjustment was able to improve abnormal blind spots. Curious that this journal article was also trashed along with the rest of the additions, (not a scientific approach especially when no attention was drawn to it). And the “Jennetics site”, [3] goes further to illustrate: a) what a blind spot map looks like. b) what an abnormal blind spot map looks like. c) that it is correctable using lighter forces than used by Carrick. No it is not peer reviewed, but it does illustrate an interesting functional blind spot observation. It may certainly be of interest to the originator of this discussion.

To negate the scientific value of information found in books would also negate the scientific value of such well recognised texts as “Gray's Anatomy”[4] “Principles of Neural Science” and “Functional Neurology For Practitioners Of Manual Therapy” even though all are used in the higher education of health professionals of a wide variety of disciplines, world wide.

My view of science is that science reports on observations and tries to make sense of those observations. The “making sense of” portion is for the most part an educated guess till more data becomes available. Those “guesses” stand until proven faulty or till a better model is developed. The observations however are the crux of the matter and if repeatable still forms part of the body of knowledge of science, no matter if it is popular or not.

It is on that basis that I have undone the "undo" by Kjl. I thank Kjl for his vigilance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PARDC (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Material deleted. The website cited is a pseudoscientific babble, as is the book. Neither has any kind of standing as a reliable source. The "peer reviewed journal" is a chiropractic journal. It has the same scientific authority as a creationist "peer reviewed journal" i.e. none. If this was anything other than nonsense, you would be able to find the information readily in mainstream sources. I rather doubt it's there, but that's the standard of evidence if you disagree. Jefffire (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just reading the last comment makes you realise why the initiator of this discussion was so frustrated by his "scientific" experience. By the way the "chiropractic" article appears in a Medline indexed journal. But I guess that is not "scientific" enough for you either. It is obvious from what you have written where the pseudoscience lies. Looks like closed minds live here.PARDC (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)