glasses

[cellio]

I'd been meaning to order new glasses for a while, but did not want to get caught in another dispute between the doctor who wrote the prescription and the optical shop that made them (like last time). So I'd been looking for a place that provides both services so I could surround any mistakes with a someone-else's-problem field. Dani had a good experience at NeoVision in Shadyside, so I went there.

The exam started off with a fascinating gadget (that, alas, I did not get the name of). One eye at a time, they told me to stare into the gadget and not blink. I watched a grapheme (not text) blur into and out of focus before "snapping" into focus -- without any communication from me. That was neat! It got the right eye just fine (which is usually the one that's hard to get a reading on), but did not "snap" to focus on the left (unusual). I reported that fact and they said that's ok; they'll tune things during the exam.

Their optician then did a fairly conventional refraction, except for two things: (1) when I told him I needed more time to focus before being able to answer "is that better?" he listened and slowed down, and (2) instead of the wacky frames into which they fit physical lenses, he had a device where he just twiddled knobs or something, with the result that the transitions were smoother. (I had not previously seen such a gadget.) Within some parameters that I don't know, adjustable glasses are clearly feasible.

The final version he came up with allowed me to read text on the wall chart that I had not been able to read with the glasses I walked in with. So that's a good sign. I told him I was most concerned with the bifocal, for both reading and computer use, and he inserted something to show me what that would look like. (For reading, anyway -- no handy computer, and they are different in feel.) Bifocals are just an add-on; there's no tuning involved. So there's not a lot of flexibility there. If I ever decide to try again with the all-bifocal-all-the-time glasses (exclusively for computer use), we could presumably fine-tune it.

Of course, the danger of all of these things is judging on a few seconds' worth of exposure; the real evaluation requires longer. (That's part of why I want those adjustable glasses!)

Their guy is an opthamologist, so he started to do a glaucoma test. I wasn't expecting that but the insurance covered it, so I let him do it. Unbeknownst to me, that insurance would bite the dust two days later. Let's hear it for lucky timing. (The new corporate overlords do have vision coverage, though it's a bit weaker. More imporantly, though, even though we've been assured that insurance will be back-dated to the beginning of the month and we're not uninsured, we haven't yet been able to actually sign up for insurance. I had a doctor's appointment scheduled for this week that I've had to move already; I hope they fix this before next month's dentist appointment!)

I picked up the glasses today. They are taking some time to adjust to, both distance- and close-vision, but the drive back to the office was perfectly fine (so distance seems promising) and I haven't ripped them off my face to return to the old ones yet. So we're already well ahead of the last time I got new glasses. Focusing on the computer screen is different but possible. Reading paper seems to be fine, though I haven't tried anything challenging yet like smaller newsprint.

So a provisional thumbs-up to NeoVision. I'm hoping that by the end of tomorrow these will feel perfectly normal. Right now, about 12 hours after putting them on, I still feel like I'm wearing someone else's prescription. (I have the impression that most people adjust more quickly than I do.)

Oh, I personally think the new glasses are a little aesthetically-challenged, but appearance is so far down on the list compared to functionality that I don't really care. I asked them to recommend a shape and size for the lenses.

Update Apr 12 morning: Distance vision in the left lens is a bit off; I can't read street signs as clearly as I could with the old glasses. The right lens is spot-on, though, and better than the old one, and bifocals seem to be better overall. I'm going to have them look at that left lens, though.

Comments

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

Congrats on the new glasses, and hope the adjustment period goes well.

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

The gadget sounds interesting. I should check around here to see if anyone has one. I have a lazy left eye that is really hard to correct. I explain the vision in it as some of the pixels are missing. It's not blurry; it just isn't always an complete image.

Good luck with the new glasses!

[geekosaur]

Ugh. That sounds kinda like a detached retina, which can only be corrected by surgery. (Alternately, cataracts, but I'd think any competent ophthalmologist should be able to detect that easily.)

[anniemal.livejournal.com]

I have been through this eye stuff this past year. I also cannot answer the "Is this better, or this?" question quickly. I have located a satisfactory ophthalmologist, though he doesn't slow quite down to my speed. I've striven to achieve their standards of decision-making pace, but failed. We compromise. He's my age, or thereabouts, so I know he's experienced but not yet doddering. Okay. We hope.

Adjusting to the new glasses. Aah. I'm still a bit bewildered at having to tip my head at odd angles to bring things into focus. I suppose my time spent with microscopes hasn't been wasted. Bringing a blossoming plum tree into focus is only a new annoyance in head-tipping. The sideways wobble sucks. But it's better than what I had, and I didn't have to drive 325mi. and pay out of pocket for it, except for the expensive lenses and frames (which bloody well better last 10 yrs.). I can mostly read street signs in time to turn onto them; or at least miss them by only a circlable block.

I've had them since the last snowfall +2wks. And am still learning, but find them mostly okay. I still plop reading glasses over them for computer use or serious reading. But my computer setup is abnormal anyway. I roll over and sit up from bed. I am a half-lotus user. Sometimes full or .75. Unkinking legs can get uncomfortable.

Reading teeny tiny itty-bitty label printing in supermarkets is mostly possible, but I keep auxilliary 1.5's handy should I need to peer. Don't flinch. Look middle-aged if necessary. Snort at those whose eyes have not yet gone presbyopic or downright cattywampus.

And take the glaucoma test if it's free or even just cheap. I'm headed that way and it's good to know it as far ahead of time as possible.

The first necessary aspect of the new frames was my sunglasses. They're called Fitovers. and I forget mine's name. They're kinda flashy for full coverage. peripheral included. Any frames I get have to go with them. I got them five years ago, and love them dearly. True to tech form, I paid a lot on the initiation, but they're only $45 now.

So i picked the least obtrusive frames that worked with the sunglasses that I liked. Always ask anyone present's opinion. Strangers have nothing at stake. They may not be right, but barring any other factors, (like one friend who has impeccable taste, and another who knows you well) it's a tough call. What one looks like in glasses doesn't and does matter sometimes in usually confusing circumstances.

My initial response is "Fuck that Shit." Then I second guess. Aesthetics. Hungh. We're smart enough now that we know aesthetics appeal mostly to the young. The young, however, sometimes matter. Urrgh.

Best of luck, since that what it seems to come down to.

I'm going to cuddle the black and brown and greehht beasties.

[goljerp]

Congrats on the new prescription working, mostly, so far.

I have to admit to being uncomfortable about glaucoma tests, mainly because of an awkward reflex on my part with regards to eye manipulation. In a nutshell, glaucoma tests make me turn green and nearly faint. Haven't actually fainted after one yet, but it's not a great feeling. And it has nothing to do with the doctor - I warn them about it now, but it doesn't help. Or else, wait, did the last doctor have something new that I was OK with? I forget. Oy, my memory, like a sieve it is.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I'm a bad boy, and hadn't been for an eye exam in almost a decade. I finally went this past November, and was pretty impressed with some of the new gadgets, including the continuously adjusted focus. I also had my pupils dilated for the first time, and that was an interesting experience - especially when I stepped out into the sun later! They weren't kidding when they said I'd be more sensitive to the light. It took longer than they said it would for the effects to wear off. The glaucoma test was different, too. Until then, I'd always had the puff of air test.

I think I'm getting closer and closer to needing bifocals, but for the time being, my contact lens prescription is the same as it was. For six-point text or smaller, though, it's starting to get fuzzy when I get closer than about five or six inches away. I really needed another reminder that I'm getting older! :-)

[ironangel]

I also had my pupils dilated for the first time, and that was an interesting experience

I had mine done for the first time right around Christmas. Then I tried to go Christmas shopping. I had to keep asking el_gecko to check the totals and show me where the line was to sign - the cashiers thought I was nuts!

[ironangel]

The exam started off with a fascinating gadget

the one with the hot air balloon in the air over green grass? that's pretty cool. it gives them a starting point for your perscription. I think it automatically measures focal length and such. for those of us with bad eyesight, it takes much less time to get to the correct script. it's pretty neat.

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

sometimes it's a house.

[cellio]

Have you been checked for all the usual suspects -- cataracts, detatched retina, macular degeneration? (I don't think glaucoma would produce those symptoms, though it's something you should be checked for routinely for other reasons.)

[cellio]

Reading teeny tiny itty-bitty label printing in supermarkets is mostly possible, but I keep auxilliary 1.5's handy should I need to peer. Don't flinch. Look middle-aged if necessary. Snort at those whose eyes have not yet gone presbyopic or downright cattywampus.

Oh, I have very little vanity here. I have visible bifocals and thick lenses; shrug. I carry a small magnifying glass for things like grocery labels.

And take the glaucoma test if it's free or even just cheap. I'm headed that way and it's good to know it as far ahead of time as possible.

I have glaucoma and see my regular opthamologist a couple times a year. So this test was redundant, but I don't mind having a little additional data and it didn't change the price of the exam, so I said sure.

[cellio]

Oh, there's definitely something squicky about having them numb your eyeball and then drop a sensor on it while telling you to hold still and not blink. Ick. But you get used to it, and I'm told that that test is much more accurate than the puff test.

[cellio]

I also had my pupils dilated for the first time,

I hadn't realized that this wasn't routine. Doing this lets them get a good look at the important bits like your retina. Good to do -- just make sure you have sunglasses handy if you're going to be driving in the next few hours.

The glaucoma test was different, too. Until then, I'd always had the puff of air test.

You had the one where they numb your eye and touch it with a sensor? I've heard that that's a lot more accurate than the puff test, so they probably move people to it as they age. Glaucoma is a progressive disease, so I assume it's more likely to show up as you get older. (I had the joy of inheriting it; mine showed up when I was 11.)

[cellio]

This one was a black sort-of-asterisk (I think it had 8 legs, maybe more) on an orange background.

what about the

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

"look straight ahead and hit a button when you see a light shine someplace in your vision field" test?

Re: what about the

[cellio]

Eh, that doesn't even make contact -- doesn't phase me in the least. I mean, after you've had your opthamologist fondle your eyeballs with gadgetry twice a year for most of your life, visual-field tests are a cake-walk. :-)

Re: what about the

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't clear :)

I meant how is that in terms of accuracy on the glaucoma thing....

Re: what about the

[cellio]

Oh, ok.

That's a different test. Glaucoma that goes untreated will affect your vision, but you want to catch it before it does that. So if the visual-field test is providing the first hints that you might have glaucoma, you may be in trouble.

Glaucoma is elevated pressure in the eye (which slowly squishes the optic nerve). So the glaucoma test is a direct test of that pressure, not a test for symptoms. Glaucoma can be treated easily but it can't be cured, so getting checked every now and then is a good idea.

Re: what about the

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Well see, that's the weird thing...

Both my mom and I have things that seem to look like the _result_ of glaucoma (hers is far more advanced than mine) but without ever the pressure of glaucoma

(which is why when I was told "well, you should really have this treated" I was at a loss because I'd just been told all that was 'treated' about glaucoma was the pressure, and I'd just been told my eyes weren't _exhibiting_ pressure... it's all very strange but on a list of 'things to do when I get insurance again')

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize it was routine. Perhaps it wasn't when I had my last exam mumblety-mumble years before.

It was the numbing/sensor test, yes, and I was also told that it's more accurate. I may be immature, but I am getting older physically.
:-)

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

I remember that it was a strange, and not terribly pleasant, feeling. It took longer to wear off than they said it would, too!

[cellio]

Well, I don't know if it's routine either. We currently have two data points, one for and one against. :-) (And I inherited vision problems, so it's entirely possible that I picked up some extra routines that way.)

I may be immature, but I am getting older physically. :-)

Yeah, same here. I had kind of thought that by having no lenses in my eyes I'd be exempt from many of the usual vision-related aging things, but even so, I do need new glasses. And no one who can see at all is exempt from some of the other stuff that can go wrong...

[rectangularcat]

Yeah, I've been having that kind of gadget used since 2000 I believe but then I do get my eyes checked at the same place they did my LASIK surgery and well they can afford the early-innovator costs...

It is a cool gadget...

I also like the topographical map of the cornea one too!

[lyev.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to say last night I saw someone who had a pair of otherwise normal glasses, except that the left lens had a small scope sticking out of it. Would be almost directly on the axis of vision of that person's eye. I don't know if it was for distance or close up work. I've seen something similar in artisan's glasses, that have adjustable magnifying lenses of varying powers that can be swung into place. But this was permanantly mounted.

He probably has good corrected vision, but the downside is of course lots of people like myself will look at him and wonder about the optics behind his glasses. I don't know if the scope could be adjusted for focal length or not.

Just thought I'd mention it for you to file away.

[cellio]

Ooh. I wish I'd seen that; I would have tried to ask him geeky questions. Which he'd either love or hate, but I think I'd be able to figure out which pretty quickly.

I took the new glasses back last night and they're going to try again on that lens.

[jerusha.livejournal.com]

My best friend, who is legally blind, has glasses with telescopes mounted in the lenses that she uses for things like live theatre. They're heavy, inconvenient to carry around, and expensive, but they do let her see what's going on. (For movies, TV, computer use, and reading she simply gets her face as close as necessary/possible to the screen. I've watched a lot of movies from the first or second row with her.)

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

I became cross-eyed as a result of measles when I was 4 or 5. I had eye surgery when I was 5 and again when I was 7 to try to line my eyes back up. My left eye has been that way since then. It's really hard to get a 7 year old kid to do the eye exercises! The vision is not that bad; it's just not normal. Some days it is better than others. I once talked to someone who has a similar lazy eye. When I described the symptoms, he knew exactly what I meant. That made me feel better about it. Now, I just accept it as a weird anomaly. If I cover my right eye and concentrate, I can actually get my left eye to work. Otherwise, it doesn't want to do its share of the work.

An interesting result of the surgery is that, while my eyes look normal, my focal point is not the same as everyone else's. You might remember the old 3D pictures that appeared sometimes in Scientific American. You needed a little stand to look through plastic "glasses" to see the 3D effect. I can't see it at all. However, one of the pictures was slightly off and nobody could see the 3D effect, except me! Very odd.

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

It's not any that serious. There are not big patches missing, just tiny bits or "not quite there" patches that jump around. It's been that way since I was 7. I explain more below in response to Monica.