A question for opticians
Discussion
For the first time in my life I need glasses to mildly improve my distance vision, but only for driving.
I've had a pair made up after appropriate testing at a high street optician. However due to the prescription compensating for slight astigmatism, the image I see through the new glasses is slightly skewed, in as much as the car's instrument cluster and steering wheel appear to be further away from me on the left than the right. Without the glasses the image I see is "correct" and symmetrical.
The optician advises that this anomaly will disappear after a couple of weeks of wear.
My question is this: if I only wear them for driving, will this visual anomaly still correct itself? And if it does look right with the glasses, will unassisted sight now have an anomaly in the opposite direction?
I'm a bit sceptical of their explanation since very little else has gone right since I had the original eye test and I feel like I may be being fobbed off.
I've had a pair made up after appropriate testing at a high street optician. However due to the prescription compensating for slight astigmatism, the image I see through the new glasses is slightly skewed, in as much as the car's instrument cluster and steering wheel appear to be further away from me on the left than the right. Without the glasses the image I see is "correct" and symmetrical.
The optician advises that this anomaly will disappear after a couple of weeks of wear.
My question is this: if I only wear them for driving, will this visual anomaly still correct itself? And if it does look right with the glasses, will unassisted sight now have an anomaly in the opposite direction?
I'm a bit sceptical of their explanation since very little else has gone right since I had the original eye test and I feel like I may be being fobbed off.
It would be useful to know your spec prescription, to see how much of a (new) correction you're having to adapt to.
The axes of power correction are also instrumental in the effects induced.
I presume your optician has double checked your specs to make sure the lens powers and optical centres are correct?
It is true that there will be adaption time required for a new prescription. And everyone is different (and everyone you talk to about it will most likely have a different prescription, different adaption tolerances etc, etc. Your spec-wearing mate down the pub will probably not be able to give you an objective opinion on why you're having this trouble).
Essentially, the images that are hitting your retinas whilst wearing your new specs are a different size and shape than they were before. Your brain needs time to adapt, process the images and fuse them together. That said, if you feel you've given them a good shot (3 or 4 weeks of extended use) and you're still not comfortable, then your optician might consider a recheck and a compensated (or backed off) prescription.
Doing this might be at the expense of sharper vision, until your adaption starts working.
Test room conditions don't always equate exactly to what's best for the patient in the real world. There should never be a quibble about re-checking and/or re-making your specs.
Even small astigmatic corrections can cause the wearer all sorts of discomfort.
Have you raised your concerns with an Optometrist or a Dispensing Optician?
If not, I would recommend it. Don't be fobbed off by the unqualified "styler" or "dispenser" who was part of a team meeting that morning, under instruction to sell as many blah blah blah extras or lenses.
Your concern that your eyes will behave differently uncorrected isn't the case.
Can you elaborate on your last sentence? What else has gone wrong since the sight test?
The axes of power correction are also instrumental in the effects induced.
I presume your optician has double checked your specs to make sure the lens powers and optical centres are correct?
It is true that there will be adaption time required for a new prescription. And everyone is different (and everyone you talk to about it will most likely have a different prescription, different adaption tolerances etc, etc. Your spec-wearing mate down the pub will probably not be able to give you an objective opinion on why you're having this trouble).
Essentially, the images that are hitting your retinas whilst wearing your new specs are a different size and shape than they were before. Your brain needs time to adapt, process the images and fuse them together. That said, if you feel you've given them a good shot (3 or 4 weeks of extended use) and you're still not comfortable, then your optician might consider a recheck and a compensated (or backed off) prescription.
Doing this might be at the expense of sharper vision, until your adaption starts working.
Test room conditions don't always equate exactly to what's best for the patient in the real world. There should never be a quibble about re-checking and/or re-making your specs.
Even small astigmatic corrections can cause the wearer all sorts of discomfort.
Have you raised your concerns with an Optometrist or a Dispensing Optician?
If not, I would recommend it. Don't be fobbed off by the unqualified "styler" or "dispenser" who was part of a team meeting that morning, under instruction to sell as many blah blah blah extras or lenses.
Your concern that your eyes will behave differently uncorrected isn't the case.
Can you elaborate on your last sentence? What else has gone wrong since the sight test?
Prescription:
R: +1.5, Cyl -0.5, Axis 90
L: +1.5, Cyl -0.5. Axis 10
There was a second test which appeared to confirm that the lens powers were correct (vision is 6/6 with the lenses, though not that far off without them, to be fair). I don't think that test re-checked the axes though.
On my original visit I explained that I needed glasses for driving, since my distance vision was not quite as pin-sharp as it was historically. I was tested and they said I needed reading glasses too, which is true since I use +1.75 ready-made glasses for reading.
On collecting both pairs of glasses it was immediately clear that the reading glasses only provided clear focus on objects that were about a foot away from my eyes, which is no use to me as I'll never hold anything that close to read it and much of my work is on a computer screen which is about 2 to 2.5 feet from my eyes. They said they would remake those to provide focus at the correct distance. They have not done so to date.
In the meantime I had worn the distance glasses a couple of times and discovered the image distortion, reported this back to the optician and gone in for a third appointment. At this point they suggested that the lenses might not be correctly centred on the pupils and that they would have these remade. I understand these were remade but when getting them fitted the distortion was still present, at which point they suggested I have the eyes tested again.
They were retested, albeit not as fully as the first time, and it was then said that my eyes would take some time to adapt. I have had them for a couple of days now and the distortion is still present, but that's probably to be expected at the moment.
My lack of confidence stems from the fact that presumably common occurrences such as the distortion induced by the astigmatism correction weren't mentioned when I first queried the distance glasses, and that reading glasses were made up without asking me what I would be doing with them and are therefore effectively useless.
R: +1.5, Cyl -0.5, Axis 90
L: +1.5, Cyl -0.5. Axis 10
There was a second test which appeared to confirm that the lens powers were correct (vision is 6/6 with the lenses, though not that far off without them, to be fair). I don't think that test re-checked the axes though.
On my original visit I explained that I needed glasses for driving, since my distance vision was not quite as pin-sharp as it was historically. I was tested and they said I needed reading glasses too, which is true since I use +1.75 ready-made glasses for reading.
On collecting both pairs of glasses it was immediately clear that the reading glasses only provided clear focus on objects that were about a foot away from my eyes, which is no use to me as I'll never hold anything that close to read it and much of my work is on a computer screen which is about 2 to 2.5 feet from my eyes. They said they would remake those to provide focus at the correct distance. They have not done so to date.
In the meantime I had worn the distance glasses a couple of times and discovered the image distortion, reported this back to the optician and gone in for a third appointment. At this point they suggested that the lenses might not be correctly centred on the pupils and that they would have these remade. I understand these were remade but when getting them fitted the distortion was still present, at which point they suggested I have the eyes tested again.
They were retested, albeit not as fully as the first time, and it was then said that my eyes would take some time to adapt. I have had them for a couple of days now and the distortion is still present, but that's probably to be expected at the moment.
My lack of confidence stems from the fact that presumably common occurrences such as the distortion induced by the astigmatism correction weren't mentioned when I first queried the distance glasses, and that reading glasses were made up without asking me what I would be doing with them and are therefore effectively useless.
Edited by 9xxNick on Saturday 11th May 08:55
I understand your doubts and frustration, but it sounds from your second post as if your optician is taking your concerns seriously and trying to get your problems resolved. Of course, it's a faff to have to go back and if we were living in an ideal world, everything would be spot on from the outset; sadly we're not.
Keep wearing your distance specs as much as you feel comfortable doing, even when walking or watching TV. The 0.50 correction for both cyls is certainly enough of a jump (for some wearers, not all) to adapt to. With the axes of correction being 80 degrees apart, it's understandable that both your eyes are seeing slightly different things.
Having said that, everyone is different! What you are finding a bit off-putting just now might not bother someone else in the slightest and this would explain why you weren't pre-warned about it.
If the prescription, lenses and measurements have all be checked/rechecked, give yourself a good couple of weeks to adapt to the distance specs.
Near specs are traditionally set to focus at 30-40cm, which is why they're no use for a computer screen set at arms length or further. They should be able to make you up a pair of single vision intermediate distance specs to suit your needs. Maybe just a communication mix up that's caused this error.
There also exists occupational lenses for office use which correct your intermediate and near vision, should you need to see not only your screen but notes on your desk.
It sounds as if you're getting closer to being a varifocal wearer!
Give it a bit of time and get them to sort out some computer specs. It does sound to me that they are trying to get you where you want to be.
It's not ideal (for either side) when these things happen, but they always will.
I worked with a DO many years ago who was like an old school ma'am. If she had a patient complaining about their new specs, she would give them a dressing down for giving the wrong answers in the test room - "well, we made your specs up based on what you told us, so it's your fault if they're wrong!"
Thankfully, times have changed!
Keep wearing your distance specs as much as you feel comfortable doing, even when walking or watching TV. The 0.50 correction for both cyls is certainly enough of a jump (for some wearers, not all) to adapt to. With the axes of correction being 80 degrees apart, it's understandable that both your eyes are seeing slightly different things.
Having said that, everyone is different! What you are finding a bit off-putting just now might not bother someone else in the slightest and this would explain why you weren't pre-warned about it.
If the prescription, lenses and measurements have all be checked/rechecked, give yourself a good couple of weeks to adapt to the distance specs.
Near specs are traditionally set to focus at 30-40cm, which is why they're no use for a computer screen set at arms length or further. They should be able to make you up a pair of single vision intermediate distance specs to suit your needs. Maybe just a communication mix up that's caused this error.
There also exists occupational lenses for office use which correct your intermediate and near vision, should you need to see not only your screen but notes on your desk.
It sounds as if you're getting closer to being a varifocal wearer!
Give it a bit of time and get them to sort out some computer specs. It does sound to me that they are trying to get you where you want to be.
It's not ideal (for either side) when these things happen, but they always will.
I worked with a DO many years ago who was like an old school ma'am. If she had a patient complaining about their new specs, she would give them a dressing down for giving the wrong answers in the test room - "well, we made your specs up based on what you told us, so it's your fault if they're wrong!"
Thankfully, times have changed!
Maybe my issue is specific to varifocals but first pairs I got were brilliant - worked perfectly. Got them replaced a few years later at same place and images jumped about as I moved my head up and down.
Opticians said it was because the lenses had been made with a "split prism" which some people can tolerate and some can't. There was no suggestion I should persevere, they just got them (both pairs, I'd also got some photochromic ones too) remade.
Opticians said it was because the lenses had been made with a "split prism" which some people can tolerate and some can't. There was no suggestion I should persevere, they just got them (both pairs, I'd also got some photochromic ones too) remade.
Revisiting this thread - how have you been getting along, OP?
Re: post above, splitting prisms is not exclusive to varifocal dispensing and in your case, Sheepshanks, it sounds like it just didn't work for you.
(Splitting prisms loosely means sharing prismatic correction between both eyes, when only one eye actually needs the help. The purpose is to aid adaption to the prescription and improve the cosmetic appearance of the spectacle lenses. Note, I did say "loosely" before I get shot down with others' non-aligning experiences.)
Re: post above, splitting prisms is not exclusive to varifocal dispensing and in your case, Sheepshanks, it sounds like it just didn't work for you.
(Splitting prisms loosely means sharing prismatic correction between both eyes, when only one eye actually needs the help. The purpose is to aid adaption to the prescription and improve the cosmetic appearance of the spectacle lenses. Note, I did say "loosely" before I get shot down with others' non-aligning experiences.)
In the end I got a refund of the entire costs to date from the original opticians, and had a pair of distance glasses made up at a local independent opticians.
I only collected these yesterday but they seem to be of better quality (in the lens sense) than the original pair. They still have the distortion effect but I'm told this will correct in time.
Time will tell, I suppose.
I only collected these yesterday but they seem to be of better quality (in the lens sense) than the original pair. They still have the distortion effect but I'm told this will correct in time.
Time will tell, I suppose.
Thanks for updating, hopefully the new pair will work out for you.
Without wishing to cast aspersions, my initial optimism that your previous optician was on the case and keen to get issues resolved seems to have been slightly misplaced!
Glad to hear progress appears to have been made
Without wishing to cast aspersions, my initial optimism that your previous optician was on the case and keen to get issues resolved seems to have been slightly misplaced!
Glad to hear progress appears to have been made
9xxNick said:
In the end I got a refund of the entire costs to date from the original opticians, and had a pair of distance glasses made up at a local independent opticians.
I only collected these yesterday but they seem to be of better quality (in the lens sense) than the original pair. They still have the distortion effect but I'm told this will correct in time.
Time will tell, I suppose.
To see if you really need the astigmatism correction (or at least if you tolerate not having it better than the distortion) you could get a pair of simple prescription glasses made up for £10:I only collected these yesterday but they seem to be of better quality (in the lens sense) than the original pair. They still have the distortion effect but I'm told this will correct in time.
Time will tell, I suppose.
https://www.theglassescompany.co.uk/men.html?price...
The quality of the glasses won't be brilliant but it might be an interesting test.
Interesting thought.
If I wanted to specify the lenses without the astigmatism correction, do I just omit the Cyl and Axis figures from the distance prescription?
The other thing that's confusing me is if I wear ready-made reading glasses, +1.5 is about right, but they make distance vision less clear. However my distance vision prescription is also +1.5 and these make the distance view noticeably better. What's the explanation for that?
If I wanted to specify the lenses without the astigmatism correction, do I just omit the Cyl and Axis figures from the distance prescription?
The other thing that's confusing me is if I wear ready-made reading glasses, +1.5 is about right, but they make distance vision less clear. However my distance vision prescription is also +1.5 and these make the distance view noticeably better. What's the explanation for that?
9xxNick said:
Interesting thought.If I wanted to specify the lenses without the astigmatism correction, do I just omit the Cyl and Axis figures from the distance prescription?
Yes. Your base prescription is +1.5 & then on top of that is a correction of -0.5 at 90 degrees or 10 degrees so effectively +1.0 in that plane. While not perfect I suspect not correcting by 0.5D wouldn't be massively noticeable.9xxNick said:
The other thing that's confusing me is if I wear ready-made reading glasses, +1.5 is about right, but they make distance vision less clear. However my distance vision prescription is also +1.5 and these make the distance view noticeably better. What's the explanation for that?
Distance lenses are concave, reading lenses are convex so while they may both be +1.5 in fact they are bending the light completely differently. I must admit I'm surprised one isn't + & the other - but I'm no expert so one may be along to point out my mistake.https://www.edow.com/nearsighted/what-is-the-diffe...
Mr Pointy said:
Distance lenses are concave, reading lenses are convex so while they may both be +1.5 in fact they are bending the light completely differently. I must admit I'm surprised one isn't + & the other - but I'm no expert so one may be along to point out my mistake.
Well-intentioned I've no doubt, Mr Pointy, but not quite right. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say one should be a plus and one a minus. Think there's a bit of confusion going on! A distance correction is not automatically a Minus lens, as one would take for granted with myopic (short sighted) patients. People who are hypermetropic (long sighted) like the OP will need a Plus lens to correct their distance vision. A plus lens does not signify that the wearer needs a correction for reading, although it is an easy and common mistake to make when one sees that ready readers come in nothing but plus powers.
(Conversely, a minus lens can also be used to correct the patient for near work. If a patient is -10.00 right and left with a +2.50 reading add, they would be wearing -7.50 right and left for reading. Yes, it can get confusing - you don't generally look at a pair of -7.50's and surmise they're for reading!)
In the OP's case, the 0.50 Cyl correction for each eye will indeed be enough to notice a difference compared to a spherical lens, because the shape of the corneas is causing half the light in the (R)180 and (L)100 degree meridians to cause a blur spot upon each retina.
Being made from very cheapo materials, ready reader lenses are also not of ophthalmic quality, so comparing lenses of apparently identical refractive power does not equate to identical optical performance. Ready readers are also not tailored to the wearer, so there's a better than average chance that the wearer is looking through a point on the lens nowhere near the optical centre.
And, as already observed, ready readers don't have the capacity to correct astigmatism. They only offer a spherical correction.
It makes me shudder when I find out that a long sighted patient is driving about in their car wearing ready readers.
Mind you. I shouldn't be surprised. There's a lot of folks out there driving half blind because they refuse to buy or wear glasses.
Johnny Raydome said:
It makes me shudder when I find out that a long sighted patient is driving about in their car wearing ready readers.
Mind you. I shouldn't be surprised. There's a lot of folks out there driving half blind because they refuse to buy or wear glasses.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not using readers for driving or anything other than close up work. I merely stated that though apparently similar they weren't providing the same visual effect as the dedicated distance lenses if, by way of an experiment, I looked at distant objects through them.Mind you. I shouldn't be surprised. There's a lot of folks out there driving half blind because they refuse to buy or wear glasses.
9xxNick said:
Johnny Raydome said:
It makes me shudder when I find out that a long sighted patient is driving about in their car wearing ready readers.
Mind you. I shouldn't be surprised. There's a lot of folks out there driving half blind because they refuse to buy or wear glasses.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not using readers for driving or anything other than close up work. I merely stated that though apparently similar they weren't providing the same visual effect as the dedicated distance lenses if, by way of an experiment, I looked at distant objects through them.Mind you. I shouldn't be surprised. There's a lot of folks out there driving half blind because they refuse to buy or wear glasses.
Certainly wasn't aimed at you
9xxNick said:
If I wanted to specify the lenses without the astigmatism correction, do I just omit the Cyl and Axis figures from the distance prescription?
Going back to this from earlier - if you're going to have a shot at this, then order what's known as 'best sphere' which is the Sph correction plus half the Cyl.In your case, this is (+1.50) plus (-0.25), so you'll need to order +1.25 R+L.
I would expect your vision to be less clear than wearing your full prescription, however.
There's no reason (ie for more profit) that any decent optician would prescribe an astigmatic correction where none was due.
Last question: did the independent optician who made up your latest pair of specs check/recheck your refraction before going ahead?
If so, did they find any difference in the prescription?
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff