Current Myopia Control Lenses and Visuospatial Training Potential

A New Experience With MiSight Daily Contact Lenses and the Future of Visual Spatial Training

An update regarding a new experience. With the daily contact lenses by Cooper Vision. The My Site contact lenses are designed as an intervention for myopia control. From experiments with animal models showing hyperopic defocus as a driver of myopia progression and development. The MiSight contact lenses is approved for this purpose.

With the release of the Stellest Lens by Essilor, which is now approved for myopia progression, I have decided to give this a try to see if it's worth me obtaining a Stellest lens to further develop protocols on visual spatial training with this lens as a synergistic modality.

Having the MiSight lenses in my possession, I have finally decided to give them a try, I inserted them into my eyes. Normally when I wear my current l glasses that are l powered at -2.5, that is me attempting to push my frontier of reduction that I have previously pushed for my previous reduction.

When I entered optometry school I was between -6.5 and -7 of myopia with some astigmatism. Over time prior to my development of visuospatial techniques in my own understanding of my vision, I was pushing this frontier for quite some time, and I was able to get down to about a -4, -3.50 depending on the day.

Once I've understood what I must do mentally, cognitively with my vision on March 23, 2025, I was able to push that frontier to -2.5 more rapidly. This was quite a jump for me, and I can with no uncertain effort, not not much effort at all, technically clear those -2.5s.

I ordered a pair of -2.25 MiSight contacts, and I can clear the 20/20 line in either eye fairly easily, even more easily than with my glasses. The reason why I believe this is the case is because of the myopic defocus in the periphery.

My Working Hypothesis: Cerebellar Action, Peripheral Motion, and Myopic Defocus

My hypothesis hinges upon visually induced and/or visuospatially induced cerebellar action upon the extraocular muscles. Knowing that plus lens effect increases peripheral motion upon movement—

• movement in the environment,

• movement of oneself in the environment,

• movement of the eyeballs themselves

.

Because the eyeballs are accelerating upon rotation, there will be apparent motion as one fixates from one area to another area, and this constant revocation is supposed to constantly occurs in vision.

My hypothesis is that the myopic defocus is not simply about “the light focusing in front of the retina.”

It is what the perceived effect is: increased visual motion that the brain is going to respond to, and when there is increased perceived motion, there is less likely of a “lockdown effect” occurring.

A standard lens can easily yield that “lockdown effect.” The reason why is that a standard minus lens acts as if we have a base peripheral prism with the apex pointing centrally on all sides 360 degrees. As one makes one saccadic eye movement from point A in the lens to another point, point B, in the lens, there's going to be a change in the apparent prismatic power pointing centrally. This can easily guide and spiral the perception centrally. This can in effect act as a form deprivation, as determined the animal models, with hyperopic defocus. It’s not simply about the light focusing behind or in front of the retina, in my opinion. Rather, it is more about what is perceived or not perceived.

There will be less visual motion. As in the basic optical observation l that when one shakes a lens in first year optometry school:

• if it's a plus lens, there will be against motion

• if it's a minus lens, there will be with motion

With motion is less motion. Against motion is more motion.

That being said, if we overcorrect with a minus lens, that will increase the apparent hyperopic effect. That will give us less motion. If we under-correct or over-plus, that will give us more motion in the periphery.

What This Means for Stellest and Future Myopia Control

So my hopes for the Stellest lens is that these plus a reas initiate increased peripheral motion.

Why do some people continue to progress despite the atropine, despite the My Site lens, despite the Stellus lens? We have a lot to learn. Not with how successful it can be, which is up to 71% success. But when it's not successful—why is it not?

My hypothesis is because when it is not successful, the person is doing some sort of operation at the visual neurocognitive level that is inhibiting a proper visually induced / visuospatially induced cerebellar action. [ There could be other parts of the brain involved. I'm not saying there's not. Most likely there is. But this is the way I'm making sense of it for the time being. ]

So what if we combine my visuospatial procedures to have a synergistic effect upon our myopia control interventions? We might just be able to not only crack and break through our ceiling of efficacy, but also, like for myself, open the possibility to at least some reversal.

The Human Factor: Why Some Patients Will Not Benefit

That being said, we can only help people who want to be help. Because of my ideas being a neurocognitive operation, the doctor can't do it for the patient. And if this patient is a child, the doctor definitely can't do it for the child. The vision therapist can't do it with the child. And the parents can't do it with the child. The child must want to do this. That is the hard truth.

I have progressing myopic patients who are still in early stages of myopia (-0.75 to -1.50) can use my techniques and still attain enough clarity to the 20/20 line without lenses, yet they do not practice it because they personally do not care enough to work on their vision. I bring up myopia control intervention such as the Stellest lens and atropine. Still, they do not seem to be interest. Yet I plea that they will

Change their mind in 10 years and wish they would have chosen otherwise. Sometimes, it falls on deaf ears. Sometimes, the patient wishes to engage. Therefore, neither can the parent can't do it for them.

But what the parents can do is make sure the child gets outside. To not allow them to put their face so close to the book or to the screen. To make sure that for every hour they’re on the screen, every hour they're outside or doing some kind of movement activity. If it's cold or raining, that they're in a large space inside doing movement-based activities.

---

The Key to Scientific Study of Visual Spatial Ideas

So the key to successfully studying my visual spatial ideas in a scientific setting would be finding children and parents who want to take responsibility for the vision. It will not work any other way.