Talk:Vision therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vision therapy article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Comment 2 Editing the page 3 Content removed 4 colorless green ideas sleep furiously 5 Parents grassroots organization 6 Irrelevant statement

[edit] Comment

Wikipedia is new to me. The VT pagelooks good. There could be more about signs and symptoms of learning related vision problems etc. Also a list of all the types of conditions treatable through VT. The links are good.

Les Alsterlund, OD

[edit] Editing the page

Added the scientific support and criticism sections. Thanks to the others that have contributed. I think this will be fun! Natebw 07:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content removed

I have removed the following from the article:

"Many critics of vision therapy emphasize a distinction between "eye exercises" and "vision therapy." In these arguments, "eye exercises" are performed for treatment of classically-recognized conditions hhngngbnnbnbnand associated symptoms directly attributable to the oculomotor system (convergence insufficiency, intermittent exotropia, etc.). Reputable (published in peer-reviewed journals) critics only rarely challenge the effectiveness of vision therapy in these areas of treatment, and then only for specific instances. Therapy activities other than traditional orthoptics, usually lumped together under the term "vision therapy", are challenged based on their use, according to critics, for treatment of such problems as dyslexia or other learning disorders."

First of all, I think much of this is an unintentional use of weasel wording in that there is no reference to which critics are reported to have claimed these things. Secondly, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (possible the primary critic of VT) appears to emphasize a distinction between orthoptic vision therapy and behavior vision therapy [1], but they do not appear to emphasize a distinction between "eye exercises" and "vision therapy"[2]. It's certainly not clear that traditional orthoptics are not challeged, too. Thirdly, who is a "reputable" critic is open to debate. -AED 16:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] colorless green ideas sleep furiously

What is this supposed to mean? "There is widespread acceptance of orthoptic therapy indications for convergence insufficiency."

[edit] Parents grassroots organization

Although having a signs / symptoms section may be appropriate, the material I deleted is not specific to VT indications and confusing in its nomenclature (the "physical clues" were mostly not physical). Also, much as I appreciate parental participation, the group mentioned does not seem to warrant citation regarding professional diagnostic criteria in an encyclopedic format. There are plenty of optometric sources which cite consensus signs / symptoms of conditions warranting VT consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedEye1 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant statement

"More recently, in 2004, the American Academy of Ophthalmology released a position statement asserting that there is no evidence that vision therapy retards the progression of myopia, no evidence that it improves visual function in those with hyperopia or astigmatism, or that it improves vision lost through disease processes."

This statement is irrelevant in that vision therapy does not claim to do these things anyway. It could be misleading for those unfamiliar with this fact. Furthermore, the link to this reference is no longer valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.5.58 (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The link has been corrected, and is not irrelevant since some irresponsible practitioners have made (or continue to make) such dubious claims. One wonders why the AAO would go to the expense to produce a policy statement refuting such claims were they not being made! In addition, "vision therapy" doesn't claim to do anything - "practitioners" do. Famousdog (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)