Talk:Floater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Floater was a Natural sciences good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 2, 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Floater article.
Article policies
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
WikiProject Ophthalmology This article is part of the WikiProject Ophthalmology, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to ophthalmology on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] Comments

This article is now completed.--Dieter Simon 00:14 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

I would like to point out the excessive use of the word "sufferers" in this article, making the floaters seem like something that directly causes suffering. Seeing as in most cases floaters are no more than a minor nuisance, I don't believe the use of the word is warranted. ThisIsRealPuma 13:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You will suffer greatly from floaters if you have the larger-size ones, which will hinder your work and cause you some distress. I will support the usage of this word. Λua∫Wise (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, everybody has floaters, it's just those who are shortsighted who can actually perceive them. I'm about 3 diopters in both eyes, and I've seen floaters as far back as I can remember. -- Tarquin 10:36 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Jesus! I've always had these too, but I've always assumed that it was just dust and stuff floating on the surface of my cornea. Mintguy 10:47 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)
But I'm not shortsighted Crusadeonilliteracy
I'm not shortsighted in any respect, and I get them.--Burbster 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have had the flashes and the "clouds" too, when in fact I did have a detached retina, back in 1979, all caused by a then generally-used anti-malaria treatment, a practice long since discarded. All ok now, though. Still got the floaters.--Dieter Simon 23:05 Feb 7, 2003 (UTC)

Why don't you put your facts into the article, Tarquin? And anything else about this, you might be sharing with us that might help? --Dieter Simon 12:43 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Isn´t "floater" also a business term?

Seconded, mintguy. I've always assumed they were dust or hair, since they change position or vanish when I blink. I'm shortsighted by about 3 diopters and I've been getting them as long as I can remember. Perhaps the dust is a seperate and similar phenomenon only detected by shortsighted people?

___________________________________________

[edit] Excellent work

Excellent job done, Dpb, is there any more to be said about floaters? I, who started the article, appreciate the perfection you brought to it. Dieter Simon 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: everyone has floaters

I'm not myopic (shortsighted), and I've had easily perceptible floaters all my life.

Of course. Nothing I've read about floaters suggests any connection to myopia. The optical difference wouldn't matter in any case; floaters are not focussed by the lens, but are shadows cast by light coming through the lens, so the refractive error of the lens wouldn't have any effect. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Can be seen the best with eyes almost closed. --195.50.197.31 14:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank You Wikipedia I am glad & relived to have good information from Wikipedia.I always thought had terrible eye disease. I had seen transparent warms against sky since age 6 or 7.Now at 50 plus it is all the time in my sight. Bright light aggravates it, Dark room alleviates the problem.Till now I am not Myopic.Floaters troubles more while reading with glasses in the bright light. Date: 21June,2007 [R.Shaw]

[edit] lieing supine

Dpbsmith, the argumentation that floaters are especially visible when lying supine may be flawed. As the image on the retina is inverted, the observation that floaters appear to sink means that they physically move upwards in the eye. Hence, the argument doesn't support the claim that the supine position concentrates floaters near the fovea. Ceinturion 21:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No your reasoning is incorrect. Whilst the image on the retina (and thus the shadow caste by the floater) is indeed inverted, your brain automatically flips it back so up really is up and vice versa. Plus, the fovea is at the back of the eye so a supine position would indeed mean that (if free to move) the floater may "fall" nearer to it and caste a more visible shadow. 163.1.68.201, 30 May 2007
Ok, it depends on what Dpbsmith meant with his claim that "many of these specks have a tendency to sink toward the bottom of the eyeball, in whichever way the eyeball is oriented". I thought he referred to the illusion that floaters are raining down, which was briefly discussed in sci.med.vision ( http://groups.google.nl/group/sci.med.vision/browse_frm/thread/be07418ed6c11761/33d96144c191b275?lnk=gst&q=floaters+raining&rnum=1&hl=nl#33d96144c191b275 ). On second thought, you may be right that he did not refer to that illusion. On the other hand, if he didn't refer to that illusion, it is hard to believe that floaters would actually fall through the vitreous to the bottom of the eye in a few minutes. The density of these little structures is not significantly different from the density of the surrounding vitreous gel. Ceinturion 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Translating the German remarks

The following summary added by 217.255.95.36 in German after s/he had reverted the link added by 217.162.94.87 in translation is:
"Your esoteric rubbish is unwelcome, especially so in an encyclopaedia. No doubt you thought that the link would have higher chances of survival (in an English Wikipedia?). {My bracketed completion}. Dieter Simon 23:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] erm..

Aren't they the cells visible when looking at certain colors such as light blue or purple?

I always thought mine looked like cells. ---T0ny 04:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
No, that's a completely different phenomenon. You're referring to the visualization of the red blood cells in the capillaries, which is much more visible when viewed against a blue background. They are tiny, they move quickly, they move steadily, they usually appear as bright dots, they seem to be in focus, and with a little attention you can see that many of them follow each other tracing out the same path (the path being the blood vessels). They can become more or less visible depending on circulatory conditions. They never look like threads or big blobs.
The things which usually get the name "floaters" are big, move very slowly if at all--they float or drift. They exhibit a wide variation in appearance but often look like threads or blobs as well as small dots, and they often appear wholly or partly out of focus. They tend to stay in one general part of the field of view for minutes at a time, then drift away in an irregular way. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Duh. I yam stoopid. We have an article about it and it's linked from this one. You are referring to the Blue field entoptic phenomenon. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temptation?

Talking about temptation doesn't make sense. Also what's with shifting the gaze? People can change what portion of their visual field they are paying attention to without actually moving their eyes. Then there's the whole "brain not tuning them out" thing. To the best of my knowledge, the brain is fully capable of tuning out movement, though this varies based on the brain in question and the type of movement. Besides, if the brain really couldn't tune them out, one would think they'd cause more trouble than they do.Hackwrench 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laser floater treatments

The two external links "Laser Floater Treatment in Virginia" and "Laser Floater Treatment in Florida" are nothing but advertisements for commercial sites who - although they are dressed up as giving information about the actual laser treatments offered - nevertheless are presenting a POV attitude which does not belong into an encyclopedia. I very much recommend removing these links for that reason. Dieter Simon 00:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transparent floaters - evidence

I see my contribution on transparent floaters that defocus a section of image without darkening it has been marked as needing citation.

I cannot currently cite any reference for this, having looked in vain so far, but I can say from personal experience, and that of my mother who spent years being misunderstood or ignored by opthalmologist, that they exist and that the evidence points to no other explanation. I have seen references to this problem on internet groups, by people similarly annoyed that their opthalmologist, unable to see any floaters, deny that they have them, while they complain of whole columns of text defocussing with no other reason identified. Not sure these constitute authoritative citations though.

I ask therefore that this section be left, for others to consider and possibly investigate. It seems to me that some things justify being reported as self-evident even if they have not been authoritively written up. Reason and personal experience leads to the obvious conclusion that transparent floaters are the cause of the problem, unless of course anyone has a better explanation to suggest here? The fact that the gelatinous body is known to break up in older people, and that such breakup is not going to create dried blood or other dark material, but rather clumps of potentially differing refractive index, like mini floating lenses, suggests that such a problem might be expected to exist, and that such floaters might well be invisible to the opthalmologist. --Lindosland 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. CameoAppearance 01:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the following section, as it reflects one person's experience of vitreous syneresis and many assertions are speculative:

"There is, however, another common form of floater, often denied by opthalmologists, perhaps because they are too young to have experienced it first-hand. This seems to be the result of relatively transparent blobs of gelatinous body breaking free and drifting in the liquid part of the vitreous humour. Quite unlike the black spots and threads commonly observed by younger people, their main effect can be to suddenly defocus the image, and if they drift close to the lens they can badly defocus a whole column of print, or the view across a road, without apparently darkening it (perhaps because of differing refractive indices). They are easily distinguished from other causes of blurring by the fact that flicking the eyes to one side and back temporarily restores normal vision. It can be annoying for people with such floaters to be told that 'floaters are not a problem', though once understood they are easier to live with.[citation needed]"

- AED 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nine Inch Nails lyrics, "Down In It"

User:HisSpaceResearch recently added this:

The Nine Inch Nails song "Down in It" from the album Pretty Hate Machine has a lyric which may well allude to floaters

The passage being referred to is probably this:

kinda like a cloud i was up way up in the sky
and i was feeling some feelings you wouldn't believe
sometimes i don't believe them myself
and i decided i was never coming down
just then a tiny little dot caught my eye
it was just about too small to see
but i watched it way too long
it was pulling me down

What do people think? Is this evocative enough of floaters that it should be included in the Quotations section? I personally don't have strong feelings either way. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There isn't any evidence that the dot is a floater rather than some external feature or flaw the speaker is describing, especially given the fantastic context. --Natebw 12:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but that is a very wrong intepretation of those lyrics - the dot is clearly something (more likely someone) on the ground. violet/riga (t) 13:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
To my mind, the song appears to be about clinical depression such as that associated with bipolar disorder. It's certainly not about floaters. -- The Anome 23:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What? Just because he's famous Trent Reznor doesnt suffer from floaters? I call it a possibility, especially because they can cause depression, which is a common element in NIN writing.
Haha, that was one of my first contributions with this account (my first contributions ever date back to about May 2004). I didn't really know about WP:NOR then.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flashers

I was surprised to find that wikipedia doesn't have an entry for "flashers" or "flasher" of the opthalmic meaning.

I'd suggest that this article be retitled to something like "floaters and flashers." Or, create some other pointer for "flasher[s]".

I don't know if the term "flasher" is common outside the US.

--peter

[edit] Information

Information on possible floater therapies and cures is very needed in this article. A lot of good information is circulating at the curezone.com discussion board. Many say they have cured their floater problems entirely. Please understand this is likely not simply pseudo-science. But yes, it seems some things work for some people, don't for others. All of this are things that should be explored in this respected article. Thank you. Anonymous, 4 April 2006

[edit] mastrubation

my friend tells me too much masturbation causes floaters. googling masturbation+floaters shows up some interesting results

  • It doesn't. Your friend is either misinformed or messing with your head. This is probably a modern version of the old urban legend that it causes blindness. And, by the way, it doesn't cause hair to grow in the palm of the hand, either. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

It's common for medical articles on Wikipedia to use the nomina medica (='official medical name') as the article title. E.g. "Myopia" and not "Near-sightedness". That being said, shouldn't the title be "Myodesopsia"? MrTroy 16:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's common, but if so it's wrong, as the Wikipedia Naming convention is always to use the most common name, not the most correct, most technical, most professional, etc. As it says, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Those guidelines should not be taken too literally. Following the rules, we might change "VHS" to "videotape" as well, because the latter is used more often. Wikipedia is for supplying correct information, so why would we prefer the scientifically unapproved name 'floater' over the correct name 'myodesopsia'? MrTroy 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Because of the naming conventions, which I just explained. And because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. is for a general audience. Feel free to strain the interpretation as much as you like, but don't call me a literalist. The spirit of the naming convention is "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." How would naming it "myodesopsia" serve the purpose of optimizing the name "for a general audience over specialists?" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Floaters look much more transparent to me, more like this:

Image:Floaters.jpg
Acdxtalk 17:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Acdx, I think that's a lot better impression of how floaters look. Whoever made that other image apparently didn't know how to create transparency. I've taken the liberty and put your image in the article. MrTroy 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You can simulate floaters. Just get a large, white, flat bottomed bowl (a casserole dish or something), and fill it with water. Shake some lint from the dryer on the top of the water (you can even just give it a dusting by beating the lint like a carpet), add a hair or two for good measure, and presto. The shadows on the bottom of the bowl look almost exactly like floaters (and I think its the same principle, in effect). Then take a picture of it.

I tried it but I don't know how to work my camera well enough at the moment (couldn't figure out the manual focus), and then it ran out of batteries :P. I'll try again another time, but if someone beats me to it, be my guest. 24.57.157.81 01:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centrum

it seems that Centrum will casue eye floaters, i am not familar with wiki so admin please chech this link.

http://p198.ezboard.com/ffloatertalkfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=72.topic&start=1&stop=20

That would fall under 'own research' which can't be included in articles under Wikipedia policy. That is, unless you find a renowned scientific magazine to publish the story. MrTroy 08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess we can say a line or two that “Allegations that the use of multivitamins can cause, or at least catalyses, the appearance of floaters have surfaced on the web.” I will not add this, untill other wiki users support this idea. Λua∫Wise (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Front Page?

I was wondering how I could nominate this article for the front page. This article helped me because I got one of these and didn’t know what it was I thought I had scratched my eye or something. I've talked to people only after I read this article to find out that a lot of other people have them. This article also saved me a trip to the school councilor after I misread the HPPD article and thought that floaters were a hallucination or something from the one time I did ecstasy over a year ago. So I think this should be front page article so it can save ignorant people like me from embarrassing situations and it’s a really well structured article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lesty (talk • contribs) 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

LOL, I had the same misconception worrying about my past escapades , and that article sent me to the eye doctor !! 216.234.58.18 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your floaters may have originated from a scratch on your eye. I've had some on my left eye ever since I had it sliced open by a cat. Ever since then, there have been floaters in my left eye which I had never seen before and, fortunantly, were my only souvenir from the incident. Flag-Waving American Patriot 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Floaterectomy

Is this procedure worth mentioning?

http://www.djo.harvard.edu/print.php?url=/physicians/oa/1004&print=1

Also, this article states: "Further work is necessary to identify newer and safer ways to remove floaters, such as intra-vitreal injection of hyaluronidase analogues and use of transconjunctival sutureless 25-guage vitrectomy systems with high cut-rates". Are these procedures worth mentioning?

I ,myself, had the same question. i have come across many forums and websites that went into great lengths to talk about some "medical" advances and new treatments. However, i did not include them in this article to keep it as scientific and reliable as possible. Λua∫Wise (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

I'm not "officially" reviewing this article, but I came across it on the GA nominations page. I noticed there was already one "fact" tag and I added a few more. Statements about specific conditions, statistics, numbers, dates, etc, really need citations, as well as any statements that are not common sense or well known. I'm not trying to sound preachy, but I'm rather fond of this article as it was one of the first things I searched for when I discovered Wikipedia years ago. I would fix it myself but I have my own pet projects to take care of... in this current condition, in my humble opinion, this isn't going to pass. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you. The article might not satisfy all GA criteria, but now I have put it there, I find it very difficult to withdraw its nomination. The feedback from a reviewer will be most helpful in determining what the article needs (perhaps listing for a peer review would've been better). Like yourself, this was one of the first articles I searched for on WP, I would like to have it on the mainpage as an FA, but it needs a lot of working to reach that status. Its GAN is a first step though. I am Ergo sum sure it will make it there. :)
Thanks!
Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Hi there, as a fellow sufferer this is a topic that is constantly in my gaze! I fixed up the lead a bit but there are a let of other things that could be improved. I'll add notes as I go through.

Lead
  • Needs to cover the topic more broadly - prevalence and treatment are missing.
Description
  • Saying "one's" is not the best way of writing about the topic, you need to describe it from an outsider's viewpoint. ie instead of "However, attempting to shift one's gaze toward them can be difficult since floaters follow the motion of the eye, remaining to the side of the direction of gaze." it would be bettler style to say "However, since floaters follow the motion of the eye and tend to remain to the side of the direction of gaze, they can be difficult to observe."
  • Yes, you need to cite the source for statistics and quotations - a general rule is that where a reader might want to know more or might doubt a statement you need a citation. If you're unsure add one - its better to over-cite than under-cite.
  • The section describing the topic wanders off into talking about prevalence, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) for the standard sub-sections.
Causes
  • I don't like "surprise links" such as "stimulate the retina mechanically" linking to phosphene. Readers tend to find these disconcerting and confusing. Its a bit clearer to day "stimulate the retina mechanically, producing an effect called a phosphene"
  • Format external links as in-line citations.
  • "one can look at the effect of blinking" - personal tone again

Overall this is an interesting and informative article, but it isn't up to the GA standard yet. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

As someone who has had multiple eye problems, including at least 5 surgeries (at least 6 if laser treatment is included), I have some personal experience with different types of floaters.

I agree with the people who disagree with the "sink toward the bottom" statement; I'd like to see an official reference for this. I know the brain flips the image, but I don't see that as being relevant. What I do see as being relevant is that external objects which appear to be below are focused by the lens at the top of the retina, and vice versa. Therefore, since floaters are on the other side of the lens, floaters near the top would be interfering with external objects from below, and vice versa. One way or another, this is not explained adequately.

After I had my last retinal detachment repair, my doctor seemed to disbelieve that I could easily see what I could only conclude were blood vessels.

I think that there should be a clear recommendation that people with NEW floaters get looked at, perhaps its' own section. New floaters, especially several, indicate some kind of damage or degeneration. Vision is by far the most critical sense for sighted people. You hear of people who function impressively well without vision, but they are likely a small minority, and you never hear of rational people volunteering to lose their vision.

Speaking of blurs, I've had that also, but the ones that I have nowadays are almost certainly merely thickened mucus on the surface of the eyeball, which people can readily remove themselves. I see that the article seems to use "tear film" for this, which needs to be explained.

The retinal detachment statement should be clarified; retinal detachment IS blindness, of the part of the eye where the detachment occurred, and it can worsen. And, I can tell you from experience that a regular optometrist who mostly deals with lens prescriptions may need some convincing to look at the retina, which requires a special lens and a bright light. If you have a significant change, don't accept "I don't see anything wrong".

Some of my post-surgical floaters tend to sink fairly rapidly; I don't recall that happening with pre-surgical floaters. Note that I've had vitrectomies, and I've also had silicone injected into my eyes as part of non-standard retinal detachment repairs; I'm certain that some of the floaters that I see are leftover silicone bubbles.

I think the red blood cell visualization should be should be more clearly mentioned or linked in the article. I've seen that since my last operation, and was wondering what it was. Scott McNay (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)