Video Games Improve 'Lazy Eye' in Adults, Study Suggests - Medscape

[ODwire.org NewsBot]

Video Games Improve 'Lazy Eye' in Adults, Study Suggests Medscape "This study is the first to show that video game play is useful for improving blurred vision in adults with amblyopia," said study lead author Roger Li, OD, PhD, research optometrist at the School of Optometry and the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute ...

More...

[AdminWolf]

just wondering what the consensus was about this study?

should I ask the authors to drop by and talk about it?

adam

[Merrill Bowan]

just wondering what the consensus was about this study?

should I ask the authors to drop by and talk about it?

adam

Sometimes called "active patching," this behavioral approach to amblyopia treatment has been decried by classical schools like Berkeley (where it was done) and UAB (who teaches that amblyopia therapy doesn't work, according to one grad here in Pittsburgh), so I'm sure this is just a bad dream caused by a morsel of bad meat, as Scrooge said of his ghost.

[ The above is all reverse psychology, pointing out that teaching sways interest levels -- ask your dad about his reponse to me on muP's.]

Don't let the lack of responses color your response, Adam: out of 13K members, few of whom actively participate, there should be a large enough audience if you schedule a visit.

The article itself is available as a .pdf at the top of the page HERE.

[AdminWolf]

Sometimes called "active patching," this behavioral approach to amblyopia treatment has been decried by classical schools like Berkeley (where it was done) and UAB (who teaches that amblyopia therapy doesn't work, according to one grad here in Pittsburgh), so I'm sure this is just a bad dream caused by a morsel of bad meat, as Scrooge said of his ghost.

[ The above is all reverse psychology, pointing out that teaching sways interest levels -- ask your dad about his reponse to me on muP's.]

Don't let the lack of responses color your response, Adam: out of 13K members, few of whom actively participate, there should be a large enough audience if you schedule a visit.

The article itself is available as a .pdf at the top of the page HERE.

Snark aside, the experimental design here seems pretty good, despite it only being a pilot study. Is the reason that this study has gotten so much press because the result was unexpected?

I know people here always clamor for more scientific rigor with respect to VT, so i'm curious as to whether or not these investigators will expand their study in the future. Maybe I should invite them to talk about the paper?

adam

[Merrill Bowan]

Snark aside, the experimental design here seems pretty good, despite it only being a pilot study. Is the reason that this study has gotten so much press because the result was unexpected?

The snarkiness is for the fact that Berkeley and UAB and others (NOVA, SCCO, Salus/PCO) have been anti-VT for decades (Mitch Scheiman has forced PCO's hand by his lead on the CITT study). Everyone has been willing to accept that VT for amblyopia either doesn't succeed or has some kind of untested window that closes at age 7, 9, or 10, depending on whose "expert" opinion you trusted. That this was performed on adults makes it hard to support the prior attitudes. VTODs have been saying for DECADES that there is no apparent upper limit on age. VTODs have also been saying that active patching was more effective than passive patching. Both factors played out in this study.

I know people here always clamor for more scientific rigor with respect to VT, so i'm curious as to whether or not these investigators will expand their study in the future. Maybe I should invite them to talk about the paper?

adam

Maybe my message got buried, but I agree. They admit the sample size was small, so I would assume that it is ongoing and that they will include this sample in a larger study over time. I wonder how much this has cost thus far? The CITT was 15 years and over 6 million, I understand.

I'd be most interested in a Webinar discussion, if that's what you're proposing.

[AdminWolf]

I'd be most interested in a Webinar discussion, if that's what you're proposing.

Yup, that's exactly what i'm proposing, if I can get in touch with the authors!

adam

[Michael Margaretten]

It has worked for years on a more primative basis. No the lab results are in. Use the technique.

Michael Margaretten, O.D., F.A.A.O., F.C.O.V.D., F.A.C.O.P.

[Gary R. Bell]

Years ago Berkeley was a place where late treatment of amblyopia was encouraged. From the medical schools came studies that claimed treating amblyopia past the age of 14 was pointless. There were also medical based studies 20 years ago (or so) claiming that playing video games while patched did not help amblyopia. I remember being surprized at that, because theoretically it seemed like a potential help to me.

Well here we are in 2011 and an originally promising idea seems to be confirmed at Berkeley, prodigious verbage and all. Thanks, medical community for once again impeding the improvement of vision science! I would like it if the study's authors came here to discuss their results: This seems pretty important.

If VT has been de-emphasized, it was not because it wasn't helping people. It was because it did not fit into the scheme of things in the medical insurance business. And, it was opposed because it was an optometric therapy. As optometry has thrust itself headlong into the medical model of political repositioning, VT wasn't faught for.

[Michael Margaretten]

No matter what 'established authorities' say, it takes time to change people's minds. In the meantime we should continue to help those in need of it with all our knowledge and skill. If we don't, then others will. In a good cause, ther are no failures or obstacles, only challenges.

Years ago Berkeley was a place where late treatment of amblyopia was encouraged. From the medical schools came studies that claimed treating amblyopia past the age of 14 was pointless. There were also medical based studies 20 years ago (or so) claiming that playing video games while patched did not help amblyopia. I remember being surprized at that, because theoretically it seemed like a potential help to me.

Well here we are in 2011 and an originally promising idea seems to be confirmed at Berkeley, prodigious verbage and all. Thanks, medical community for once again impeding the improvement of vision science! I would like it if the study's authors came here to discuss their results: This seems pretty important.

If VT has been de-emphasized, it was not because it wasn't helping people. It was because it did not fit into the scheme of things in the medical insurance business. And, it was opposed because it was an optometric therapy. As optometry has thrust itself headlong into the medical model of political repositioning, VT wasn't faught for.