Jump to content

Talk:Irlen syndrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Belfry (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 19 July 2012 (→Non-NPOV / weasel words / Nomenclature and name of article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Non-NPOV / weasel words / Nomenclature and name of article

To me it appears there's a negative (skeptical) bias towards this condition pushed by this article.

  1. I've just renamed "Lack of scientific proof" to "Skepticism" - this is more appropriate, especially considering the brain scans that have been done on people with Irlen syndrome. Having the label "Lack of scientific proof" is leading the reader to conclusions that may not be correct nor accurate.
  2. Brain scans have been done on Meares-Irlen individuals showing increased efficiency in visual processing with lenses vs without (which shows extraneous brain activity to cope with the stress).
  3. A number of universities have studied Meares-Irlen syndrome, and see it as valid and physiological condition - this isn't covered in a balanced way, and hence a NPOV hasn't been given.
  4. Scotopic sensitivity syndrome is a misnomer and the syndrome isn't usually referred to in this way now. I find it unusual that the article is named as such. "Meares-Irlen Syndrome" or "Irlen Syndrome" would be more fitting and in-step with current nomenclature.
  5. Meares-Irlen syndrome isn't caused by a problem of the eyes, but rather the speed at which the signal from the eyes is sent to the visual processing centres of the brain - the signal arrives out of sync and hence visual stress occurs (or at least this is one current theory).
  6. The article is lacking citations and more thorough authoring.

Raphael Belfry (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody out there?

Hi, I'm a psychology student at the University of Alberta and as part of a class project I will be attempting to improve this article. During the next two weeks I'm planning to make a major revision every 1-2 days. Any feedback you wish to give me will be greatly appreciated! Thanks Learnerkip (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is SSS?

Nowhere in this article does it say what SSS is, or does. From what I have read, it is an inability to see certain colors, right? Then should it merge with color blindness? 75.177.131.250 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the sentence alleging that critics agree that SSS is "certainly" a visual processing problem and that the symptoms are real. Many critics feel quite differently. Also, there was no reference for such a controversial statement. PedEye1 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is achromatic, anyway?

Has anyone tried achromatic lenses as a replacement for the various colored lenses? Hackwrench 23:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can say from experience that my acromatic lenses do not solve my scotopic sensitivity--but they are better than nothing at all. The theory is that the lenses need to block precisely the right wavelength, or they won't work, so each colour is individually chosen.Yowie 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to avoid glare, then polarized lenses are the answer. Achromatic means black and white to me, but that seems to be the problem. Do some people in this world really, really prefer reading through rose coloured glasses? Maybe you could do an experiment with entirely normal subjekts: blue for boys and red for girls, versus a control class with neither. You can't do this double blind, of course (you can make the administrator blind to her subjekts), but the crossover part where the controls become the subjekts should be done. Brewhaha@edmc.net 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A PhD in my department states categorically that hue (colour) cannot affect your perception of contrast - only tone can. I've done those poxy colourimeter tests, and they ARE quack science. Even though the (British) government will pay for the lenses; I opted for pricey polarised ones, and they are more effective. In fact in a module he showed us the structure of the rods and cones in the retina, and explained in detail how they work. This prompted me to create this article in the first place. Promsan

Merge

Asfedia and Scotopic sensitivity syndrome seem to be synonymous, so I think the pages should be merged. Discussion on the Talk:Asfedia talk page please, just to make it easier to follow. -- Whitepaw 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same thing. I think I created either this or the Asfedia article - I didn't create both. [Promsan] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.154.201 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Herald article

This could be useful for editors of this article. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article needs a redirect from Irlen's Syndrome and Scotopic Sensitivity (syndrome), and maybe from colourimeter testing - I'll add more data later. I have this condition, and I've gots loads of info about it. Please can we avoid deletions of content without discussion, it's against Wikiquette. Thanks. It takes one to know one 08:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Asfedia and Scotopic sensitivity syndrome seem to be synonymous, so I think the pages should be merged. -- Whitepaw 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asfedia, I believe, is a far less common name for the condition. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- Asfedia is a uncommonly used term; Scotopic sensitivity syndrome and Irlen syndrome are much better known. If any merge is performed, it should be to the better known terms. Bticho 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following quote from the article is misleading and erroneous:

"Asfedia, formerly known as Irlen's Syndrome and Scotopic Sensitivity (Syndrome)"

1. There is no supporting evidence that the processes described for Asfedia are consistent or related to Irlen Syndrome/Scotopic Sensitivity. It is misleading and irresponsible to state that Asfedia and Irlen Syndrome are one in the same. Irlen Syndrome has been validated by dozens of independent research studies over the last 25 years. To the best of our knowledge, the term Asfedia has been fabricated by and researched only by Tintavision which has a commercial interest in having Asfedia displace Irlen Syndrome.

2. Irlen Syndrome/Scotopic Sensitivity was discovered by Helen Irlen in 1980 and has become a well-recognized disability. The Irlen Method, which mitigates the symptoms of Irlen Syndrome has been validated by many independent research studies over the past 25 yearsand the method has helped hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

Rirlen 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of both the work of Irlen and Tintavision. Irlen is internationally recognised and accepted, and UK Tintavision organisation working in a simialar of research seeking local recognition. Tintavision may have some alternative or new appraoches to the same topic, but wish to have some lines of demarcation between their work and the work of Irlen. Such is are the methods of progress researchers taking different routes. So it may be worth retaining the two seperate entries but with links to the other on each.

best wishes

dolfrog

I'll install the redirection based on these comments, which seem to be unanimous. I'll also copy this entire talk page into the other article to explain the indirection. I'll also make it convenient to copy any material here that should be there.

Brewhaha@edmc.net 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merjer In Progress

The old asfedia article is here[2] if anything there should be here. It seems to me that the external links to organizations interested in defending the premise and refining the diagnosis should be copied. Brewhaha@edmc.net 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irlen_syndrome&oldid=503146994"