Talk:Blind spot (vision)

Issue with Citation #3

Hi there, I went to look at the PDF which is cited for the position and size of the blind spot, and it is a 219 page mil-spec document which doesn't seem to mention the blind spot or scotoma anywhere. I think this means that the citation is invalid, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I'm not certain that it doesn't mention the blind spot, because I'm not about to read an entire 219 document, but having searched for every instance of the words "blind" "vision" and "scotoma" I've yielded nothing close to the figure mentioned in the article. DJsunkid (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

🤔 Maybe it's there but you didn't see it cuz... You have a blind spot 😉 HardeeHar (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's

It's taken approximately 6 trips back to my Optometrist., and $850.00 for two pair of glasses that I can't see out of for my Dr. to figure out, I have a "blind spot" in my right eye. I have given the glasses back for a full refund and he has made an appointment for me to see some other kind of Dr.(???). Can anything be done so that I can see clear out of my right eye? The glasses don't work for upclose or distance. I wear reading glasses from Walgreens but still can't see distance. I struggle everyday with my work and driving. I am 47 yrs. old and otherwise in good health. After reading online about "the blind spot", I see no purpose in going to this "other" Dr. Any suggestions???? this is stupid

See scotoma. Everyone has vdddf vallthe' blind spot, but this should not be perceived by you at all. If you are having problems with your vision, that is not the blind spot but another blind spot (scotoma) that has developed in your eye. Also I would advise you not to ask for medical advice on Wikipedia; you're likely to wait forever or run into a crank. I suggest the WebMD forums. — coelacan talk — 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

table problem

Would someone please do whatever it takes to get the "See also" section out of the table? Better still, could someone replace the table by an image? Use the "Blind spot" external link for inspiration. Thanks. --Ujm 07:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Got the table fixed. I'm not going to make an image though. The A O X text worked fine for me when I tested it. — coelacan talk — 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

my eyes hurt....... and it didnt workKiran90 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Worked fine for me. Trippy, man. --Nuggit 08:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

no the table IS a problem. different screen resolutions and maximised/unmaximised browser windows means that the X might fall outside the 20 dgree axis shift of the blind spot... come on guys, put a static pic there ;-)

the table definitely is a problem for people with wide screens. i found this picture but i dont know how to upload pictures to wikipedia. if someone could add it to replace the table that would be great. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/gifs/blindspot1bw.gif here is where the image came from(quite a useful site by the way http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.148.124 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It sort of worked for me, the 0 faded away but didn't vanish. FinalWish 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An image offers no advantage over a table. A table can be given a fixed width if desired. Both a table and an image will change in actual size depending on the monitor resolution. Finally, I have a widescreen monitor, and it worked just fine. — Chameleon 04:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I radically improved the test setup / instructions the other day.--72.173.2.163 (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

Is the comment about "proof" of evolution really necessary? Seems irrelevant to the article. 69.158.4.144 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What was taken out: The existence of the blind spot in vertebrate eyes is the basis of one argument in support of the theory of evolution, in that a perfect God would not create an "imperfect" eye. Yeah... irrelevant. Good call. Makes ya think though. --Nuggit 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The blind spot was "Designed" by the Invisible_Pink_Unicorn (Peace Be Unto Her) on purpose to remind you heathens of the wrath of God. :p Sasank (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It’s not irrelevant. It’s very important information about the eye. Or at least it would be if it were true. The fact is that a slight imperfection in something does not prove evolution or gods. Both religion and science are consistent with there being flaws. (Science explains the processes by which they developed, and religion says ‘it is the will of the gods that it be so.’) — Chameleon 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It worked 4 me too .. really amazing. -Vishal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.165.61 (talk) 06:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Test doesn't belong here

We're not a guide on how to find a blind spot in your eye nor is wikipedia here to provide a test for doing so. --Crossmr 06:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the test is quite useful. Its very simple and lets you check what a blind spot is immediately. And why is wikipedia not a guide? I will revert the test back unless there is a better explanation as to why it should not be here. --Sasank (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I now know a lot more about the blind spot. IMO it's a vital part of the page. 84.230.103.185 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The test convinced me completely about the blind spot, and agree that it is vital. Zevilz (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The test should me mentioned somewhere, in a separate article or in this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.38.20.184 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is almost pointless without the demonstration. (It’s not a ‘test’ — everyone has a blind spot, so you can’t pass or fail this.) — Chameleon 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the 'test' in principle; however, the current test does not work very well. It says "You may need to reduce the size of your browser window if your screen is large or at a high resolution," but does not give any indication as to what size it is supposed to be viewed at. I have tried it at various sizes, and can always see the O. Could the test not be replaced with a fixed-size image that doesn't stretch according to browser window size? 81.105.111.230 (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have blind spots in both eyes after suffering from a macular degeneration condition many years ago. I was never given that blind spot test, specialists don't use it as far as I'm away and I just tried it and its useless. The way they'd test me was to get me to fix my vision at a spot such as at the wall and then the doctor would hold a pen or pencil approximately half a foot from my face and he would move it horizontally slowly from the outside of my field of vision to the center of my Vision; the patient can see the pen in their peripheral vision and if they're suffering from blind spots the front of the pen will suddenly disappear then as the pen is moved closer to the center of the field of vision the front on the pen will reappear again. This simple test is repeated at different heights of the patients field of vision. For me personally holding the pen horizontally makes it very easy to spot the blind spots whereas its more difficult to notice them if the pen is held vertically. Doctors may or may not try doing the test holding the pen both ways but unfortunately doctors tend to usually hold the pen vertically as its more comfortable for them doing the test holding the pen in that fashion. HardeeHar (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Fun tests and information that can be gleaned?

So...if you follow the instructions but move your eye left and right relative to your screen you will notice that if you go far enough to the left or right, the O reappears. From this left-right darkness zone distance (helps to have a friend with a ruler held in front of your head), your eye's distance from the screen, and the distance between the X and the O on the screen, you can compute the diameter of the hole in your retina where the optic nerve inserts!!! You can also measure the size of the hole by having a friend help you measure the onscreen blindness circle's diameter.

I really think this should be mentioned in the article along with calculations. Furthermore, this blind spot allows for an excellent opportunity to find out how neural adaption works to fill in the hole. Conscious information appears to be useless. It seems to just continue lines and match color. Anybody experimented with complicated images larger than the blind circle's diameter on the screen in place of the "O" to see what their brain fills in? Meowist (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest psuedoscience edits to this page?

I have serious reservations about the last edits to this page [[1]] but do not have the time to fully research it out or refute it.

The ideas that the blind spot can be related to brain health or that it can be corrected at all with light, spinal adjustments, or anything else when it is simply a matter of geometry of where the optical nerve splits and inverts to form the retina, are ridiculous. The webpages and books used as references reek of pseudoscience, and in particular the Jennetics page was last updated on Jun 2 and includes a link to this wikipedia page (which had also had all the questionable material added on Jun 2), which makes me think that this page is being used to provide false information to support the (bogus, imo) information on the Jennetics page. Kjl (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the pseudoscience tag

It is interesting that this discussion started off with a person with a question related to what seems to be an extensive "blind spot". Vision encompasses more than just the eyes, as that person had found out. It also includes the occipital lobes of the brain and the temporal and parietal regions in the association cortex via Meyer's loops (see [2]). These areas enable the interpretation and integration of occular inputs into how a person is able to operate in his/her environment.

This means that yes the blind spot does relate to the geometry of the eye. Kjl is right about that. But that is not the whole story. Blind spots are also related to “functional” aspects of the brain. The Carrick in a peer reviewed journal showed that chiropractic spinal adjustment was able to improve abnormal blind spots. Curious that this journal article was also trashed along with the rest of the additions, (not a scientific approach especially when no attention was drawn to it). And the “Jennetics site”, [3] goes further to illustrate: a) what a blind spot map looks like. b) what an abnormal blind spot map looks like. c) that it is correctable using lighter forces than used by Carrick. No it is not peer reviewed, but it does illustrate an interesting functional blind spot observation. It may certainly be of interest to the originator of this discussion.

To negate the scientific value of information found in books would also negate the scientific value of such well recognised texts as “Gray's Anatomy”[4] “Principles of Neural Science” and “Functional Neurology For Practitioners Of Manual Therapy” even though all are used in the higher education of health professionals of a wide variety of disciplines, world wide.

My view of science is that science reports on observations and tries to make sense of those observations. The “making sense of” portion is for the most part an educated guess till more data becomes available. Those “guesses” stand until proven faulty or till a better model is developed. The observations however are the crux of the matter and if repeatable still forms part of the body of knowledge of science, no matter if it is popular or not.

It is on that basis that I have undone the "undo" by Kjl. I thank Kjl for his vigilance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PARDC (talk • contribs) 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Material deleted. The website cited is a pseudoscientific babble, as is the book. Neither has any kind of standing as a reliable source. The "peer reviewed journal" is a chiropractic journal. It has the same scientific authority as a creationist "peer reviewed journal" i.e. none. If this was anything other than nonsense, you would be able to find the information readily in mainstream sources. I rather doubt it's there, but that's the standard of evidence if you disagree. Jefffire (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just reading the last comment makes you realise why the initiator of this discussion was so frustrated by his "scientific" experience. By the way the "chiropractic" article appears in a Medline indexed journal. But I guess that is not "scientific" enough for you either. It is obvious from what you have written where the pseudoscience lies. Looks like closed minds live here.PARDC (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

an orphan wants you to help him

Dear authors of the "Blind spot(vision)” Wikipedia entry: Concerning your article, may I cordially suggest you to read the text “The TK Theory of Visual Proportions” and, if necessary, link or cross-reference the latter article with the former. Please contact me in case you have any doubts or questions. Yours, espaisNT. --EspaisNT (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blind spot (vision). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100409080052/http://www.vonrechenberg.ch:80/blindspots.html to http://www.vonrechenberg.ch/blindspots.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting fact about blindspots

I have blind spots, several, some large and I don't notice them; unless it's in the center of your vision you don't see them, you don't notice there's any picture missing, it's kinda strange; I assume this is the same for all sufferers whom don't have it in the centre of their vision. People that don't have blind spits probably don't realise that. It maybe interesting to readers to add this (if you can find a source to cite that is). HardeeHar (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Rewording first couple sentences

I think the first couple sentences can be reworded for clarity. The first sentence is a bit short and lacks detail. I think the second sentence can be integrated with the first one. The article can focus primarily on the physiological blind spot. Somerandomuser (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge with optic disc

Hello, the optic disc causes the blind spot. Strictly speaking, one causes the other, but in practice, those pages talk about the same thing. I think we should merge. NicGambarde (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)