The best rated optical website today, is on boosting of color vision

[Chris Ryser]

The best rated optical website today is the En Chroma site on a boosting of color blindness by their newly developed sunglass lenses.

The website has now a touch better ratings than Luxottica site which had the highest for a long time.

They are selling their sunglasses up to $ 700.00, which is rather expensive. They also claim that the products are all made in the USA.

They also post some good references in different newspapers.

The revolutionary EnChroma Cx Lens fundamentally boosts color vision, bringing color to the color blind.How does it work? What are the implications? They could include anything from overcoming activity, task, and learning obstacles to discovering new and breathtaking sensory experiences.

see all of it: ========> or use the links in copied text above
http://enchroma.com

What do you say ?

[Barry Santini]

They have, along with others like Dr. Mark Changizi's O2Amp eyewear, uncovered the underlying principles behind correctly color deficiency and/or enhancing color discrimination. It's is no longer a "blind", trial and error recipe creation, which is substantially what Irlen had done with color overlays. An Optiboard member here, Ian Jordan, is one of the world's experts on this area for using color to correct vision and behavioral-related deficits.

B

[Chris Ryser]

Ian Jordan teaches:

How a teacher can recognize, assess and screen for
Visual dyslexia, visual dyspraxia and other vision linked stress
An Essential handbook
Ian Jordan


See all of it: ==========>
http://www.jordanseyes.com/userimage...ssmentbook.pdf

En Chroma'a website deals with the color blind, as far as I understand.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Color defective people can pass certain color vision tests when they wear a red lens on one eye. This is a very old and well understood thing. Wearing equally colored lenses on the two eyes cannot do that. They are just selling a tint that seems to brighten colors subjectively for the wearer. No way to really quantify such "improvement".

[Chris Ryser]

Color defective people can pass certain color vision tests when they wear a red lens on one eye. This is a very old and well understood thing. Wearing equally colored lenses on the two eyes cannot do that. They are just selling a tint that seems to brighten colors subjectively for the wearer. No way to really quantify such "improvement".

If that is the case, how can a website in a 6 month period pass every other one and get to the top ?

Here is the story of their invention published by the New York Times:

The eyeglass lenses that Don McPherson invented were meant for surgeons. But through serendipity he found an entirely different use for them: as a possible treatment for colorblindnessMr. McPherson is a glass scientist and an avid Ultimate Frisbee player. He discovered that the lenses he had invented, which protect surgeons’ eyes from lasers and help them differentiate human tissue, caused the world at large to look candy-colored — including the Frisbee field.At a tournament in Santa Cruz, Calif., in 2002, while standing on a grassy field dotted with orange goal-line cones, he lent a pair of glasses with the lenses to a friend who happened to be colorblind. “He said something to the effect of, ‘Dude, these are amazing,’ ” Mr. McPherson says. “He’s like, ‘I see orange cones. I’ve never seen them before.’

”Mr. McPherson was intrigued. He said he did not know the first thing about colorblindness, but felt compelled to figure out why the lenses were having this effect. Mr. McPherson had been inserting the lenses into glasses that he bought at stores, then selling them through Bay Glass Research, his company at the time.

Mr. McPherson went on to study colorblindness, fine-tune the lens technology and start a company called EnChroma that now sells glasses for people who are colorblind. His is among a range of companies that have brought inadvertent or accidental inventions to market. Such inventions have included products as varied as Play-Doh, which started as a wallpaper cleaner, and the pacemaker, discovered through a study of hypothermia.

Continue to read: ========>
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/bu...lind.html?_r=2

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I'm not much a fan of testimonials like thiat one. I'd like to see a few people who fail standard color tests take the same tests with their sunglasses on. I know that the plates are designed for use with standard lighting and no tints, but it would at least clear the air, esp. if these tests are administered by anyone besides the developer of the sunglasses.

[MakeOptics]

Color defective people can pass certain color vision tests when they wear a red lens on one eye. This is a very old and well understood thing. Wearing equally colored lenses on the two eyes cannot do that. They are just selling a tint that seems to brighten colors subjectively for the wearer. No way to really quantify such "improvement".

They're actually using filters in a novel way to create a sort of digital stimulus. Either the receptor receives a signal or it doesn't. Traditional tints still have analog transmission curves if you study enchromas curves they have sharp drops in certain spectral ranges. It's a neat read and I know many people that swear by them. A number of years back I posted about them here because we were using the lens with great succes, so far nothing has changed I still see excited patients. While I can't vouch for what the patient is actually seeing the results speak for themselves.

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...ing-Sunglasses

[Chris Ryser]

You started a whole discussion a year ago on the subject of their products.

I was only posting it because their website has taken a huge leap in popularity over the last 7 to 9 month and a distributor I have in Eastern Europe also sells their glasses.

[MakeOptics]

You started a whole discussion a year ago on the subject of their products.

I was only posting it because their website has taken a huge leap in popularity over the last 7 to 9 month and a distributor I have in Eastern Europe also sells their glasses.

I would have to guess that their rank going up is due to the attention they are getting from the industry. Everyone I know that recommends the lenses has been pleasantly surprised by the results.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

They're actually using filters in a novel way to create a sort of digital stimulus. Either the receptor receives a signal or it doesn't. Traditional tints still have analog transmission curves if you study enchromas curves they have sharp drops in certain spectral ranges. It's a neat read and I know many people that swear by them. A number of years back I posted about them here because we were using the lens with great succes, so far nothing has changed I still see excited patients. While I can't vouch for what the patient is actually seeing the results speak for themselves.

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...ing-Sunglasses

Actually the way vision works is pretty digital already, and it's always the fact that either a receptor fires or it doesn't. When it's threshold is reached by a specific amount of radiant flux, it fires a "digital" signal into it's nerve fiber. This is mediated by a chemical flipping of an individual rhodopsin or iodopsin molecule from one geometric state to another (cis, trans). That one nerve impulse travels along the nerve fiber eventually reaching the occipital cortex where vision actually "happens".
If the radiant flux continues to reach the threshold, as soon as the molecule flips back to its orginal state, it will fire again, a very "digital" process. If the radiant flux drops below that threshold the molecule and its nerve remain quiet, or "off". It's a very off and on system, as is the entire nervous system of the organism.

So I am very skeptical of the ability of any optical system to selectively stimulate or not stimulate any particular receptors in the retina with any meaningful specificity. And am also quite leery of subjective "improvement" by testamonials. Again, it would take careful scientific analysis of color vision performance to prove any real improvement in that function.

[Barry Santini]

The color seen is a decoding the firing rate between all three receptors, along with the rods in low light. By notching out an area in the R-G overlap, this changes the result of the decoding, increasing chromatic contrast.

B

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

Of course, but in color deficiency, there is an abnormality it one or more of the cone types. Are they blocking the deficient cones or the normal ones?

[Barry Santini]

The "abnormality can be (short list)

1. deficiency in firing rate
2. Change is range of frequencies covered
3. Change in overlap between L, M & S

Ian Jordan can expertly handle this Q better than I.

B

[Chris Ryser]

Ian Jordan can expertly handle this Q better than I.

B

see all of it at: ==============>

http://www.jordanseyes.com/page2.htm

[MakeOptics]

Of course, but in color deficiency, there is an abnormality it one or more of the cone types. Are they blocking the deficient cones or the normal ones?

Using the digital/analog model again as an example. By filtering the specific wavelengths that stimulate the various receptors the very same benefit of the digital/analog model that applies to electronics can apply to the receptors which is a reduction in noise or as Barry puts it contrast enhancement. This reduction in noise prevents a type of floating state where an on signal can be interpreted as off and vice versa.

The receptors are like you mention very digital in nature however the stimulus up until now has traditionally been analog with the conversion happening at the receptor level. Enchromas lens works like a preprocessor handling conversion of the analog stimulus before the photo receptors process the signal. It's a method of scrubbing the stimulus and applies to any tint in general, except usually the methods used to apply tints have been more trial and error.

As a side note I don't know how effective the same filter would be for different types of "color blindness".

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

see all of it at: ==============>

http://www.jordanseyes.com/page2.htm

Looked at that site and found nothing scientific about color vision, and have to wonder about these topics:

Timing and mapping tests
Feedback testing
Cross sensory testing

Which have an impressive sound to them, but no mentions about what they mean or how they are done. Am especially concerned about all the work he's done that is "confidential". If this is legitimate science, he should share it and let science analyze it. Otherwise, it has to be suspected as the work of a charlatan. Especially when he limits his clinic to 7 patients a day.

[MakeOptics]

Looked at that site and found nothing scientific about color vision, and have to wonder about these topics:

Timing and mapping tests
Feedback testing
Cross sensory testing

Which have an impressive sound to them, but no mentions about what they mean or how they are done. Am especially concerned about all the work he's done that is "confidential". If this is legitimate science, he should share it and let science analyze it. Otherwise, it has to be suspected as the work of a charlatan. Especially when he limits his clinic to 7 patients a day.

Check out this link:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...e-color-2015-2

We are still learning about color and how to interpret. In a course I took at Johns Hopkins (Principles of fMRI), I thought of an experiment that would be interesting where you took a sample of people with normal color vision and through MRI looked at the signals and intensities when viewing different colors, then compared them with samples of different "color blind" subjects and compared the intensities of the stimulus. It would be interesting to see if there are variations in the intensities and if those same "color blind" subjects would see a normalization of intensities with different filters. I would hypothesize that the intensity of the stimulus could be tweaked using filters to normalize the stimulus to mimic normal color perception which could validate enchromas product.

If anyone happens to have an MRI in their garage and a few hundred subjects that would be willing to subject themselves to "backyard MRI's" then have at it, but please post the results and pictures because I could use a good laugh.

[globaljp]

Color defective people can pass certain color vision tests when they wear a red lens on one eye. This is a very old and well understood thing. Wearing equally colored lenses on the two eyes cannot do that. They are just selling a tint that seems to brighten colors subjectively for the wearer. No way to really quantify such "improvement".

No there isn't. Its like trying to quantify ice cream to someone who has never tasted it. The enchroma lenses increase your color perception and allows the color challenged to see more color then they do normally. Im color deficient and they are amazing. We have only had them for a couple weeks and when they work for the person its freaking awesome. It pains me to read such a dismissive comment by someone ignorant of the real world results.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I can totally accept that your results are freaking awesome. But you're right, I kind of dismiss the scientific sounding jargon that is thrown around in support of their use. Trying to stick to the scientific method is a habit of mine.

[globaljp]

I can totally accept that your results are freaking awesome. But you're right, I kind of dismiss the scientific sounding jargon that is thrown around in support of their use. Trying to stick to the scientific method is a habit of mine.

So through observation, using the scientific method, you should be able to observe peoples reactions to seeing things differently and or for the first time. for example. "holy sh@%, that awnings red!" or "my god, thats what pink looks like!!" 9 people tried them this week, 7 loved them and were nearly giddy from excitement, 1 said they worked a little but was disappointed they didn't do more, 1 was so color blind he noticed little change. Enchroma is like every other company who explains enough to build some confidence in the consumer but the results are all thats important. They work for some of us to see the world better and thats all thats important.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

It reminds me too much of those cheap blueblocker sunglass ads where the people exclaim "I never knew I could see this clearly", tears and all, through a plano orangy-brown sun lens.

The fact remains that people with normal color vision have no concept of what people with abnormal color vision actually "see". And vice versa. A red-green defective person can say "so that's what pink looks like" and is still not seeing anything like the pink that a color normal sees. There is no way to know. The one thing we do know for sure is that he will still fail standard color vision tests no matter what he thinks he is seeing.

[globaljp]

That is very true. You have no idea what other people see. I want to hit every person who says "what is this color? what is that? is this red to you? Personally I can usually identify purple, pink, red, green, etc. Its the shades and nuanced color thats a problem. The glasses tho make the world appear in more beautiful color. Its like going from a standard def tv to 1080p. Its just better. No other tint, polarization, etc has done that. I don't have to sell anyone on them, they put them on and they either work and the love them or they don't.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I think that's a stretch. I do believe that all of us who were born with "normal" color vision, which is about 90% of us, we all see colors pretty much like everyone else in this category. The 1% or less that are completely color blind (monochromats), we can assume how things look to them; pretty much shades of grey. It's those pesky color anomalous people who cannot tell us how their worlds look because we can only relate to how we see things, and we cant tel them how colors "really" look, since we have never and will never see like they do.

Remember just because they know grass is green and the sky is blue does not mean they can differentiate them. Show them a nice picture with blue grass and green sky and they will always fail. Give them a "normal" picture, and they'll get it right 100% of the time. (a bit simplistic, but you get the idea).

[globaljp]

For someone so scientific, you "think thats a stretch", "you believe", "we can assume", "pesky color anomalous people". What is wrong with you? Its not a stretch, its what i experience with them and several of my friends who are color challenged. I was attempting to explain the experience of seeing more and different variations of color. You may want to reevaluate your all knowing dismissive attitude.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

What's wrong with me is I have scientific knowledge.