Talk:Phoropter

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

Rollback of this edit

Phoropter is NOT a copyrighted term of Reichert Inc. as indicated in this edit. The Stedman's dictionary provides a definition of the phoropter here defined as "A device containing different lenses used for refraction of the eye during sight testing". Even the use of the term phoropter in scientific documents clearly illustrates the fact that it is not a copyrighted term. I have also reinstated the image. prashanthns (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

What is the correct spelling? The introductory paragraph states that "phoroptor" is the correct spelling but that it is sometimes misspelled "phoropter", yet the article is titled "phoropter"! I have a feeling that they are actually alternate spellings, both correct, but I haven't done the research to back it up. Either way, something needs to be fixed! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete old manual technology

Why is this totally subjective manual method of eye examination still being used?

For people with lazy eye problems, they may be unable to properly indicate to the optician whether they can clearly see with the non-dominant eye, which will exacerbate the lazy eye becoming further suppressed by the developing brain.
Similarly, non-communicative patients who may benefit from eyeglasses will similarly be unable to assist in the selection of the best lens prescription for them.

It should be completely feasible at the current level of technology for a patient to essentially have a 3D mapping performed of their eyes, which is then used to create the ideal lens prescription without the patient having to communicate anything to the doctor.

I can think of several possible automated solutions straight off:

Point a wide field-of-view live digital camera into the eye with an automated servo-driven phoropter on the camera lens body.
A partial-transmission mirror projects the distant image of words, scenery, or an animated game or video into the patient's eye. The patient only needs to look at image and try to focus on it as the automatic scanner does its work.
Use a computer to quickly analyze what lens powers and cylinder settings are required to bring the patient's retina (illuminated by the projected image) into sharp focus, with the computer controlling the automated phoropter.

"Which is better, 1 or 2?" and the phoropter should be put in museums as an obsolete technology.

DMahalko (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. But take it to a forum. TaintedMustard (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phoroptor

"phoroptOr" is the correct spelling, "phoroptEr" is a common misspelling. The trademark is not easy to find on the USPTO website, but is there. I have been repairing these instruments for over twenty years and have heard these same misconceptions many times before. Go to Reichert.com to see for yourself. the picture on this article is not a Phoropter, it is an RH Burton, 7500I auto-cross refractor. There are "virtual" refractors, and have been for many years, they are called auto-refractors and are mentioned in the article, however they are not as accurate as a manual refractor. you can fool the mind with a virtual image, but the eye is not as easily fooled. they are only approved in the US as a means of obtaining a starting point to speed up refraction time.Havily (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely how you insist on recognizing the trademark, by spell-bashing the "...er"-version and recommending the "...or"-version, proving your point by placing an advert of the trademark holder in question... immediately after which you use the widely accepted "...er" version yourself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.167.103 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The optional rotary cross cylinder units for the DeZeng 570

The rotary cross cylinder units that were optional for the DeZeng 570 (and 574) are not like a Jackson Cross Cylinder. They have three cylinder lenses, two of which can have their axis directions (compared to that of the third lens) rotated, symmetrically, within the unit. Then the whole unit can be rotated.

This in effect generates a variable cylinder power, along with a varying sphere power (which we really don't want but get anyway).

Its use was to provide the cylinder power component of the "setup", handier than using loose cylinder trial lenses (which was the normal way to do that on those machines). But one had to compensate for the gratuitous sphere component that the device generated.

Of course in later models a "real" cylinder lens section, with two 5-position lens disks, was added, which was much handier yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Kerr (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]