Talk:Irlen syndrome/Archive 1

Archive 1

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).

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Moved Donna Williams Summary to 'Anecdote'

I'm not sure what value this summary of parts of Donna Williams' book adds to the article, but perhaps someone with access to the book can make some verifiable quotations that help improve the quality of the discussion of the topic. Otherwise it shouldn't be here.

Dan Shearer (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Modified and Moved the Discussion of Research and Studies

The main section seemed to try to establish that the syndrome exists by linking it to two prestigious universities. It is true that units at both of these universities have studied it, and that one continues to be very active in the area including prescribing treatment. But this is much less important than the fact that there is as yet very little work in the area, and many areas have been identified which are unexplored. For a simple test, look at scholar.google.com and compare the number of articles addressing the syndrome by its various aliases with work on related topics such as dyslexia, reading difficulties and remedial approaches and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanShearer (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

This seems ridiculous - there is a copious amount of references and scientific evidence provided in the "skepticism" section, but there is a distinct lack of references in other sections of the article. It seems to me that "Lack of scientific proof" might be a more appropriate title. --Dlhegarty (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Auditory processing issues are my area of interest, or what the brain does with what the ears hear. Scotopic sensitivity syndrome would seem to be about what the brain does or does not do with what the eyes see, a problem visual processing, or a problem with the brain processing what the eyes see. I have two PubMed research paper collections which may help provide some related research, and links to more related research papers. Visual Processing and Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome It would appear that researchers have not really invested much time to research these issues as yet, may be due to the complexity of the technology required, yet to be invented. There have been similar issues related to researchers investigating auditory processing disorders in recent years. dolfrog (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

be bold

This page has a lot of weak material on it. Let's edit boldly, cut the dubious material, and get the tag off the top of the page. I got us started with the lead. Leadwind (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortuntely my copy editing skills are very poor, however you might find some useful research papers to improve the citations of article content in my online PubMed Scotopic Senstivity Syndrome research paper collection and you may find more related research recommended by PubMed with each paper. dolfrog (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! We see some support for the utility of overlays (especially blue-filter overlays), but not for Irlen's specific claims (e.g. that there is a distinct syndrome that can be alleviated by overlays of a particular hue that gets selected through her secret process). Perhaps predictably, bad science makes the associated good science look bad by association. Leadwind (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean, the politics of research into these issues supports the concept that dyslexia etc is a single condition, rather than a symptom that has many possible underlying cogntive causes. And the samples of dyslexics that partipate in the research programs are not diagnosed as to which of the possible underlying causes actually cause their dyslexic symptom. Each type of remedial program or support option will only help a single cogntive cause of the dyslexic symptom, just to recruit just dyslexics for any of these type of research is pointless and will always demonstrate that no program can help all dyslexics, which is obvious because the various support options will only help those dyslexics who have the underlying cognitive cause of the dyslexic symptom that support option can help. Here is another one of these dubious research papers bound to demonstrate that overlays will not help all dyslexics because thye have not identified the underlying cause of the participants dyslexia, another waste of time, money, and effort, Questioning the benefits that coloured overlays can have for reading in students with and without dyslexia 2013 The same happens in relation to my own disability auditory processing disorder which is the cause of my dyslexic symptom. dolfrog (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just had another look at this presentation which was made at a recent Dyslexia Symposium (Oxford University (UK) March 2013) "Visual Problems in Dyslexia" by Kristen Pammer which may help explain some of the issues.dolfrog (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Source

This doesn't seem to be used in the page, but does have a section on IS [3]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added this paper to my collection at CiteULike. There needs to be section included in the article devoted to the history of Irlen Syndrome, explaining how the concept was launched, and how research into both IS and other related issues has developed in recent the years since. There are issues related visual stress and light sensitivity, which need to explained with supporting citations dolfrog (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointer to research studies

Wikipedia articles that make medical claims should be verifiable by reliable sources for medicine-related articles. A recent group-edited blog post[4] points to research resources on the topic of this article, and should be good for improving the article content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There is research, especially from the UK medical research council. The problem seems more about how Irlen went about promoting her research, and disputing her ideology, rather than looking at other research sources. dolfrog (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What is achromatic, anyway?

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

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)

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)

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

Achromat--195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Unsourced" image?

Two examples of how a sufferer may see text

Seems some IP gave this image a fact tag back in July 2012. Not sure what kind of "referencing" would be needed for an image, but perhaps before restoring an apparently disputed image, some discussion is warranted to determine whether the image would an accurate illustration of the effect of Irlen/scotopic syndrome. Dl2000 (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Complete rewrite?

The sources aren't a bad start, but the way the sentences are written is all backwards and way too long. For example, it seems like the entire "Brain studies" section should be just one sentence like "SPECT brain images have shown Irlen Lenses reduce visual stress.^[1][2][3]" with a few of the better sources as references.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 12:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Garbage Article

This article is almost entirely about the people researching this syndrome, with very little of it actually covering the syndrome itself. It's extremely difficult to read, as there are entire paragraphs dedicated to outlining the researcher's credentials, the institutions they worked for, etc, etc, etc.

It needs a complete rewrite. LiamSP (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with this. It looks like an advertisement. The strings of letters after the Australian researchers' names are impressively long - suspiciously long, in fact - and the references both lead to the website of "The Australasian Association of Irlen Consultants, Inc.". This organization was founded, and is run, by the first-named researcher, and offers diagnosis and services to "sufferers" of (and moreso, perhaps, to the ambitious parents of) this suspicious condition. "Irlen Syndrome" does sound like a much more respectable excuse for not doing well at school than "being a bit thick" does. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Weasel words everywhere and it feels like an attempt at persuading the reader rather than an encyclopedia entry. There are whole paragraphs discussing organisations that deal with eye-strain in general, not relating to this syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.91.251 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)