Neurolens Rebrands as Newton

[Gretchyn Bailey]

​

DALLAS, Sept. 9, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Neurolens, the innovation company redefining eye care through exceptional patient outcomes, is proud to announce its official rebrand to Newton. Named after Sir Isaac Newton—a great innovator who laid the foundation for modern optics —the transformation reflects the company's commitment to challenging conventional standards in optometry and pioneering new frontiers that improve patient lives.

"Newton represents more than a rebrand—it signals the next chapter in transforming eyecare beyond 20/20," said Davis Corley, CEO of Newton. "That same spirit of discovery drives everything we do. We don't just meet expectations—we set new ones."

The Newton story began over 13 years ago with pioneering research into Contoured Prism technology. By addressing how binocularity impacts the trigeminal nerve, particularly in the near vision zone, this breakthrough lens technology helps eyes work together effortlessly— allowing patients to not just see better but feel better. Years of research and clinical studies led to the development of Contoured Prism technology that has provided life-changing relief to hundreds of thousands of patients across North America.

Today, Neurolens technology has delivered measurable results: 90% of patients experience relief from symptoms related to eye misalignment, such as headaches, neck pain, eye strain, and motion sickness. Starting with neurology clinics' most challenging cases, the company has helped hundreds of thousands of patients find the relief they'd been searching for—often within days of wearing their first pair of Neurolenses.

The spectrum of innovation that began with Neurolens continues to expand. Newton represents more than a rebrand—it signals the next chapter in transforming eyecare beyond 20/20, with an unwavering commitment to helping eye care providers deliver exceptional patient experiences.

"We've always believed that results matter, relief matters, and your patients matter," added Corley. "As Newton, we're building on that foundation with innovations that challenge what's possible in optometry."

Dr. Evie Lawson, a Neurolens provider in Seattle, echoes this commitment to transformative patient care. "Neurolens has been truly practice-changing for me and often life-changing for my patients," said Dr. Lawson. "Newton represents the next level of innovation in eye care, consistently supporting optometry to deliver optimized patient experiences. I'm excited to see what the future holds."

About Newton
Newton is an innovation company redefining the eye care through exceptional patient experiences and outcomes. With patented Contoured Prism™ technology, and soon to be released Convergence Boost™ technology, Newton empowers eye care providers to bring real relief to patients while elevating the standard of care across the industry.
For more information, visit www.newton.tech

 

[A A Camblor]

Did they ever produce legit studies to show the efficacy of their very expensive product? We all know even placebo has a certain positive effect. Is Neurol.... excuse me Newton, shown to be better than placebo?

 

[Lloyd Pate]

Did they ever produce legit studies to show the efficacy of their very expensive product? We all know even placebo has a certain positive effect. Is Neurol.... excuse me Newton, shown to be better than placebo?

No studies that I ever saw. I asked for a unit to do a study with.

 

[Andrew Gore]

Lloyd, did they give you one to try out?

 

[Michael I. Davis]

From a marketing standpoint, it seems odd that they would change the name after it has been out for so long. Whether you like the product or not, they’ve been advertising so heavily that pretty much everybody recognize recognizes the name, I think.

 

[Jeffrey Kiener]

 

[joel b. goldberg]

From a marketing standpoint, it seems odd that they would change the name after it has been out for so long. Whether you like the product or not, they’ve been advertising so heavily that pretty much everybody recognize recognizes the name, I think.

A rose by any other name...

 

[Jeffrey Cooper]

Here they go again, published scientific nonsense.

“Neurolenses Proven to Reduce Headache Symptoms

The current report highlights the data from their published double-masked, randomized Headache Study . Based on the clinical study data, Neurolenses provide a statistically significant improvement in headache symptoms. A quick literature review suggests that the improvement noted in the current study is on par with several commercially available pharmacological solutions. The Neurolens process provides a simple and effective way to detect, diagnose and treat patients with digital eyestrain and headaches.*



*Efficacy & adverse events have been fully evaluated and discussed in the peer-reviewed publication.”



The following are my comments related to that publication of their study.

Labhishetty V, Cortes J, van de Pol C, et al. Impact of Neurolens Use on the Quality of Life in Individuals With Headaches: A Randomized Double-Masked, Cross-Over Clinical Trial. Transl Vis Sci Technol. Jan 2 2024;13(1):27. doi:10.1167/tvst.13.1.27


Lynn Mitchell Phd at the OSU College of Optometry and I met, at the request of the president of Neurolens to discuss the results with their “people”. She concurred with the conclusions presented below. The people from Neurolens stated that they would not publish anything in the future but good science. THEY LIED

The followings is what I previously stated. No new data has been supplied by Neurolens



Personally, I have always had trouble understanding why Neurolens would work. It defies all our current understanding of the interaction of the accommodative-vergence system whereby fixation disparity is believed to be a disparity error which drives fast vergence response. The accommodative/vergence system relies on multiple feedback systems to further reduce the load of vergence demand (ACA, CAC, proximal vergence, fast vergence and slow vergence).2-6 Lastly, over time the muscles actually change the number of sarcomeres to further reduce the load. There is ample evidence from numerous laboratories that this redundant system usually is successful in initiating a rapid accommodative/vergence response.7 To complicate the matter, neither the time performed doing near work, nor the effort expended accommodation/vergence has been put into this or other paradigms. I have always maintained that the symptomatic patient with binocular problems can be easily identified since they are usually symptomatic from testing.8 The authors of this Neurolens paper, in my opinion, incorrectly interpreted the CITT’s findings by noting that one test does not correlate with a diagnosis of symptomatic CI, but they seem to ignore that the CITT group did find that a cluster of 3 signs is significant for symptomatic CI.9 In summary, Neurolens has ignored all of these complexities and created an apparatus to objectively measure the deviation at distance and near to prescribe a prism at distance based on their proprietary algorithm and arbitrarily add .75 BI at near.



Recently, Neurolens performed and published a study to determine the effectivity of their contoured prism prescription.1 They performed a clinical trial whereby they measured primary outcome by using a 6-question questionnaire (HIT-6) to quantify headaches (HA). The HIT-6 has been used in numerous studies. A score of 36 indicated no headache, while a score of 78 indicated a severe HA. Smelt et. al. reported that you needed a minimum change of 2.6 by statistical analysis or 6.0 by ROC to have any clinical meaning.10



Eligible subjects for the Neurolens study needed a score of greater than 56 and all had normal stereopsis. Baseline information was measured, the mean findings of relevance were: distance phoria was 2 X and the near finding 5 X’; the base out fusional reserves = 15 pd which is low; and lastly the mean distance Neurolens measurement was 1.3 pd BO.



Phase 1 testing score of recruited patients = 65

Phase 2 patients are given new glasses to correct RE = 63 (regression towards the mean and correction, as expected improved the score



Phase 3 A-B reversal design half wear Neurolens and half wear control tested after 20 days of wear; then tested at around day 30; then the Neurolens patients wear the control and the control is prescribed the Neurolens for 20 days testing and testing around day 30.



Control = 61 which is a slight placebo effect

Neurolens = 58 which is not much better (but statistically significant even if not clinically significant)

“Change between the two treatment groups was 1.53 points” which is not clinically significant AND furthermore, we do not know if that differences would be maintained over time. To put this in perspective, there was a 5% improvement with Neurolens and 2% with control. Add to that, in most treatment studies the initial results wain somewhat over time.



In summary, Neurolens was not found to have been clinically effective in reducing symptoms of HAs. To date the most effective method of reducing or eliminating symptoms related to binocular problems, which include more than headaches (Convergence Insufficiency Clinical Trials - CITT) is in office vision therapy with supplemental home therapy.11 Granted the CITT studies were only done on Cis but those of us who provide in office therapy and use the CITT symptom survey see similar results with other binocular problems. Lastly, those who still ascribe to Neurolens, I ask what do they for their contact lens patients? Vision therapy changes both the reflexive nature of fast and slow vergence with a lasting effect. It works with either glasses or contact lenses. When will our professions properly identify accommodative/vergence anomalies and recommend the most appropriate treatment (evidence based) for our patients?



1. Labhishetty V, Cortes J, van de Pol C, et al. Impact of Neurolens Use on the Quality of Life in Individuals With Headaches: A Randomized Double-Masked, Cross-Over Clinical Trial. Transl Vis Sci Technol. Jan 2 2024;13(1):27. doi:10.1167/tvst.13.1.27

2. Cooper J. Clinical implications of vergence adaptation. Optom Vis Sci. Apr 1992;69(4):300-7.

3. Cooper J, Scheiman M. American Optometric Association Clinical Practice Guideline. Care of the subject with accommodative and vergence dysfunction. American Optometric Association. 2010: .

4. Schor CM. Analysis of tonic and accommodative vergence disorders of binocular vision. American journal of optometry and physiological optics. Jan 1983;60(1):1-14.

5. Alvarez TL, Scheiman M, Santos EM, et al. Clinical and Functional Imaging Changes Induced from Vision Therapy in Patients with Convergence Insufficiency. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society Annual International Conference. Jul 2019;2019:104-109. doi:10.1109/EMBC.2019.8857163

6. Scheiman M, Talasan H, Alvarez TL. Objective Assessment of Disparity Vergence after Treatment of Symptomatic Convergence Insufficiency in Children. Optom Vis Sci. Jan 2019;96(1):3-16. doi:10.1097/OPX.0000000000001320

7. Guyton DL. The 10th Bielschowsky Lecture. Changes in strabismus over time: the roles of vergence tonus and muscle length adaptation. Binocular vision & strabismus quarterly. 2006;21(2):81-92.

8. Cooper J, Jamal N. Convergence insufficiency-a major review. Optometry (St Louis, Mo. Apr 2012;83(4):137-58.

9. Rouse MW, Borsting E, Deland PN. Reliability of binocular vision measurements used in the classification of convergence insufficiency. Optom Vis Sci. Apr 2002;79(4):254-64.

10. Smelt AF, Assendelft WJ, Terwee CB, Ferrari MD, Blom JW. What is a clinically relevant change on the HIT-6 questionnaire? An estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients. Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache. Jan 2014;34(1):29-36. doi:10.1177/0333102413497599

11. Group. CITTS. Randomized clinical trial of treatments for symptomatic convergence insufficiency in children. Archives of ophthalmology. Oct 2008;126(10):1336-49. doi:126/10/1336 [pii]

IN SUMMARY THE PRODUCT LACKS BOTH ANY PHYSIOLOGICAL RATIONAL OF WHY IT SHOULD WORK AND ANY SCIENTIFIC DATA DEMONSTRATING THAT IT WORKS. ALL THAT IS AROUND ARE A GROUP OF ODS WHO SAY IT WORKS (MANY WHO ARE PAID TO SAY IT, SOME WHO DO NOT PRACTICE)