In 1983 a woman named Helen Irlen hypothesized that there might be an underlying neurological problem in encoding and decoding visual information for some people who have trouble learning to read, or for people who have trouble with sustained reading. She futher hypothesized that this problem can be alleviated by adjustments to the appearance of the printed page: that is, special colored lenses in glasses, or colored overlays on the page, and so forth.
Here's an important point: some people do seem to have perceptual distortions especially when doing close work requiring the rapid discrimination of similar stimuli, such as comparing and comprehending the following sentences:
A man with a fat face ran down the hallway.
A mat with a flat facet ran the hill play.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html
http://www.rep.bham.ac.uk/reports_list.shtml
http://www.aoa.org/x5418.xml
http://dyslexia.mtsu.edu/modules/articles/displayarticle.jsp?id=49
http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1990/5-6.html
Download Coloured_filters_for_reading_disability_FINAL_VERSION
SCOTOPIC SENSITIVITY SYNDROME
Russell S. Worrall, OD
Helen Irlen, a licensed Marriage, Family
and Child Counselor from Long Beach, California, theorizes a condition
she calls "Scoptic Sensitivity Syndrome" (SSS). She
claims that 15% of the general population, and more than 50% of
the reading disabled, suffers from SSS as diagnosed with the Irlen
Differential Perceptual Schedule (IDPS). Irlen was twice featured
on 60 Minutes demonstrating a dramatic improvement in oral
reading fluency in children and adults by wearing tinted eyeglass
lenses. A brochure published by an Irlen Clinic also claims "great
relief," in some cases, for amblyopia, nystagmus and cataracts.
Irlen Clinics are opening throughout the USA. A cadre of local
screeners is being trained to feed the clinics with patients.
Screeners are using direct mailings to schools and professionals
claiming a "remarkably simple" cure for reading disability.
Screeners charge up to $60 for their services. The total cost
of diagnosis and treatment is approximately $565. Yearly follow
up visits will add to this cost.
Although the proponents may be sincere in
their beliefs, it is my opinion that the aggressive promotion
of the Irlen approach is unwarranted based upon current evidence.
Computerized searches of the scientific literature have failed
to produce studies supporting SSS, although several critical reviews
have been published. The psychological literature supports the
effects of colors on some aspects of behavior. Flyers, shooters
and skiers use yellow lenses to increase contrast, optometrists
prescribe pink lenses to control reading glare, and spectrally
modified lenses are prescribed to enhance visual performance in
selected patients. On the other hand, it has been shown that the
eye's autofocus system (accommodation) is blind to color, so tinted
glasses should not help a focusing problem.
Testimonials, a clinical study, and several
unpublished studies dispensed by the Irlen Institute note some
positive effects, but to date, studies have NOT shown that:
- SSS diagnosed with the IDPS exists as
a unique condition different from those already known.
- The use of colored lenses is more effective
than a placebo or other interventions for reading disabled individuals.
- That any beneficial effects persist over
time.
SSS seems to be very similar to minimal
binocular dysfunction diagnosed by behavioral optometrists. The
term scotopic is a misnomer. Scotopic refers to dark adapted vision
in which only the rods, which are insensitive to color, are active.
Since decoding is a complex cognitive task which transcends vision
and involves both auditory skills and higher level functions,
it is hard to propose a mechanism for improved oral fluency based
on the simple application of colored lenses.
In summary, it is my view that the claims
of the Irlen Institute are extraordinary within the historical
context of research of learning disabilities and dyslexia. Although
their theory is interesting, SSS advocates should develop a broad
base of clinical and experimental evidence before commercial promotion
can be justified. I believe that parents should evaluate all of
the alternatives available to them, including private tutoring,
standard assessment and remedial procedures before allocating
money, time and energy on any reading enhancement program.
Dr. Worrall is Assistant Clinical Professor,
School of Optometry, UC Berkeley; Coordinator, NCAHF Task Force
on Vision-Related Misinformation. (References available upon request.)
===
July 5 2010 Stephen Barrett is the doctor behind QuackWatch a wonderful resource for exposing bogus medical claims. Among the many subjects of common charlatanry he's taken apart, one is the use of invalid tests to justify useless treatments, like chelation for autism, which is a goldmine for quacks.
One of the labs providing the urine tests "proving" the need for chelation is Doctor's Data. They have sued Dr. Barrett.
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Stephen Barrett
Recent Comments