There's a $95 app for that. This app presents gabor patches at different locations on the screen, and you have to respond when a gabor patch is presented at the target location. The app increases difficulty as you play by speeding up, changing orientation, and by presenting the gabor patches closer to the target. I can see how such an app could lead to faster processing/response times, but I don't see how it increases visual acuity. "After training, the volunteers were able to read more than two lines further down an optical chart held 40 centimetres from their eyes - corresponding to a reduction in "eye age" from 50.5 to 41.9 years". Can the brain really be trained to take a blurry image coming from the eyes and make it clear? Anyone familiar with this research?
5 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 7 previous comments
- Your point is well taken that the control is pretty weak and a simple placebo effect could be at play. That said, it's hard to come up with a strong placebo test here (and the test method is relatively objective, although improved confidence could produce accuracy improvements for the final row where people are guessing a bit). Certainly you could build a placebo against the specific treatment used, but against the idea of perceptual training in general, it might take a few studies to come up with one that has no effect [of course, finding out what does and doesn't work would be valuable!].
They did mention the possibility of motivation effects, particularly when then noted that commercial reported results were slightly better (it's always hard to draw the line between some sort of bias there and honestly better outcomes due to the motivation paying for treatment produces).
While the study doesn't strongly support a claim for the specific method they were testing, I used it because it does at least offer reasonable support for the concept that (possibly a wide variety of) perceptual training can lead to improvement, even if that improvement is due primarily to some sort of placebo-like confidence boost.Oct 9, 2011
- A possible partial control might be a modified FPS where your close misses are recorded as hits and enemies are slow to fire and usually miss. Regarding Polat's work in the New Scientist article, the transfer seems plausible to me. If you are ever going to get transfer from a perceptual learning task to a clinical test of vision, transfer from contrast sensitivity training to letter recognition measures of visual acuity is a pretty good bet (and it has also been reported before.)Oct 9, 2011
- Ah, I was referring to the more minimalist Gabor patch training (for which the simple control might be flat highlight zones), but I like your idea for FPS testing. On the other hand, that might be a necessary part of the test anyway in order to get a representative population sample (non-gamers do not often adapt quickly to FPS mechanics); it would compensate more for control capabilities than perception, I'd think . . .Oct 9, 2011
- cool~~~ I was in a vision lab and they trained amblyopic subjects to increase their acuity via gabor patch.Oct 10, 2011
- There's a great racket: pay us $95 and we'll let you participate in our perception experiment. Hello, NIH, welcome to obsolescence.Oct 12, 2011
- I am a vision scientist who studies crowding. You are right that reading speed is limited by crowding. But if your vision is bad, you will have other trouble as well, which is what this program is aimed at. Crowding and acuity are two different things. I am working on a method that reduces crowding and speeds up reading by 20%. So far, it's working on every subject and requires no training. You just read text, but we present the text in a special way.Nov 5, 2011