Myopia treatment 'smart glasses' from Japan to be sold in Asia
asia.nikkei.com
asia.nikkei.com
https://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/how-to-use-low-dose-atrop...
Anyway, the first thing that came to my mind when I read this article was pinhole glasses which people have also (most likely wrongly) claimed help correct myopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_glasses
Generally the reasons behind myopia are changes in the shape of the eye or the lens, not something the muscles are doing wrong. (And a contributing factor with age is the decreased flexibility of the lens over time).
These contact lenses are squishing against your cornea. So in actual fact an anterior portion of your eyeball is being re-shaped.
Doesn't sound like it fixes myopia, rather that it addresses one of the side effects of high myopia?
Doesn’t seem like done in any other countries other than Russia - https://www.nature.com/articles/eye2009322
Isn't the treatment for "treatable" myopia "spend more time in the sun"? IIRC, something about spending time in the sun prevents/reverses myopia in most children.
I also seem to recall that you can sleep in pure oxygen and it will change your eyesight (the cornea gets its oxygen directly from the atmosphere and high oxygen concentration encourages growth which thickens the cornea).
If myopia is structural though (misshapen eyeball, aged muscles not working to focus, etc.), what kind of non-surgical treatment would you expect to work?
One other problem that comes up is that the neural "integrators" in the human control systems get "leaky" with age. If you ask someone above about age 40 to look completely to the right or left, you can observe their eyeball "vibrate" as the saccades correct the integration error in tracking position.
(This was given as an exercise in a bioenginering class for "model the human eye tracking system". You had a series of observations you had to take and measure and then derive both the control system and the rough time constants. One of the observations that you had to account for was why the older grad students/professors had this "vibration". You could create this behavior if your "integrator" block was leaky.)
Microsaccade amplitude is correlated with uncorrected myopia, actually. If you have visual blur it seems fixational eye movements have higher amplitude. (Proper corrective lenses generally remove this effect).
Of course, if someone has astigmatism, often it won't be properly corrected looking far right or left, too. I'm guessing this is the effect you measured.
https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2281647
https://www.kubotaholdings.co.jp/en/kubota-glass-technology-...
Fixing my myopia would be one of my life’s dream. I’m unfortunately non eligible to laser surgery due to my amblyopia. I’m stuck there forever waiting for a non invasive treatment that nobody is searching for because, well, we have the LASIK.
I'm eligible for LASIK but I'm still waiting for a non invasive treatment as well. I know it is "safe" but it can go wrong and after reading some of the horror stories in forums I would _hate_ it if it goes wrong. Even smaller side effects like having dry eyes all the time and eyes hurting when there is wind sounds annoying.
Maybe what didn’t work for me will work for you.
(please excuse my writing, it's difficult for a non native to talk about technical topics with a lot of vocabulary I'm unfamiliar of)
https://eye-see-mag.com/en/high-tech/autofocus-lenses-for-pr...
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04806503
That would be really something.
Results from the most recent completed study are encouraging:
https://www.healio.com/news/optometry/20201012/further-study...
There is a sizable incumbent revenue stream from expensive progressive lenses for those with presbyopia, which may or may not influence investment in alternative solutions.
I suggest and encourage you to try the exercises that others in this page have mentioned; some people have written their guide or guidelines and one well known is
"The No Bulls#*t Guide to Vision Improvement", by C. G. Hayes
(search for > Guide to Vision Improvement.pdf < or similar).
First of all, the best wager is to place bets on ways that some witness have worked, and it is not ruled out they could work for you also.
If anything, you will have gained points exercising discipline.
All of this sounds so quacky. The name, the "secret knowledge industry doesn't want you to know about", the marketing...
> the "secret knowledge industry doesn't want you to know about", the marketing
Have you dreamt those features, or are they somewhere in the document?
On the other hand for myself I did go for LASIK since I was -7 and didn't fancy the years of work it might entail. And it was like ... 2 day affair from going to the doctor to being fully functional without any side effects ... It was risky though as some people I know did do the same, and ended up with complications that took months to iron out.
Glad Lasik worked out for you. What side effects did your friends experience? I've thought briefly about Lasik, but I have this (potentially irrational) fear of persistent headaches as a side effect, which would be a nightmare for me. So I stick with spectacles - it has no detrimental effect on my life, but I do wonder if it would be possible to get back good eyesight again.
Have two pairs of glasses, one of them about half strength(self test for the exact number) for computer and close up work or in-home. Use your full strength glasses for important tasks like driving. Every 20-30 minutes take a break and look into the distance(works well with Pomodoro technique, if you do that), practice your blurring exercises.
Edit: at .5 adjustment I'm right at the edge of variance. It's possible to do nothing and have a slight improvement on your yearly optometrist visit because of secondary factors like change in environment or nutrition. I'm not a health expert so I can't say, but if anything that site helped me to do fewer things that strain my vision and a few things that made me more comfortable. Would I have fully cured if I kept going? Science says probably not, but I don't regret my effort.
Near work imposed in schools and wearing glasses constantly is the reason for current myopia epidemic as can be evidenced by low myopia rates in schools following western curriculum that is more holistic in nature.
As for lasik - I blogged about it back in the day - https://medium.com/@ivankerin/a-humble-mans-account-of-the-l...
The problems - one mate didn’t properly understand the commands he was given, (not a native speaker) and ended up poking his eye sort of mid operation. They fixed his good eye, and told him to wait for a couple of weeks until the “flap” healed and regrew so they could do it again on the other eye. Totally avoidable if he was paying attention - I had no problems and it was over in like 5 mins.
Another mate didn’t get corrected to the exact focal length so they had to do it again a couple of months later. Not a big deal just unpleasant.
I decided to go for the operation after I had an eye infection and figured I was risking my eyes every time I was putting the contacts in, so might as well risk it once and be done with it. Glasses were not an option as I wanted (and still do) practice various sports, and -7 is not fun at all.
I do this every day over years now "just in case it works" - hasn't helped me at all. Wish I could believe these delusions.
And I feel there's a kind of meditative calmness to the blurriness that I think I might miss. It's quite nice when I'm going to bed or waking up and everything is just a blur, no distractions to catch my eye because I can't see them! I'm probably doomed if I'm ever in an apocalypse and lose my glasses, though (see Twilight Zone "Time Enough at Last").
Also, our super power is the power to see extremely small details, which proves useful sometimes!
It wasn’t until I started wearing contacts (and thus couldn’t easily take them out) did I realize that short-sightedness gives me very good up close vision.
https://crstoday.com/articles/2019-apr/laser-induced-refract...
I already had 5 Dioptrien at that point.
My eye wear guy who took my eye readings had issues properly configure my measurements.
I decided to just take what the machine calculated and the first days it was difficult to wear.
But after thati gained back so so much detail.
It's just ridiculous to play around and not accepting glasses.
I'm mad at myself that I waited for accepting it for way too long.
The entire business model exists only by not informing you of everything that can go wrong.
Ironically I now know more about these procedures than I ever did before, and all I've learned is how the entire industry is aligned to not tell patients about what things effects the outcome and how little they actually can do if the results are not good.
Edit : If you google lasik/Smile complications and so on you'll just find a rabbit hole of despair from people who had their eyes ruined. I'm kinda amazed that medical professionals actually has the conscience to perform these procedures. Theres also this tendency to blame dry eyes - which is just the industry's way of camouflaging the real issues.
However, I did Lasik, maybe 10-15 years ago, no problems now and never had a problem.
The industry did feel a bit sketchy though. Not sure if it's improved. I'm sure most of the professionals involved are excellent - but at the time, it felt very private, and not in a good way.
/anecdote
There is sadly no guarantee that they help, and they can damage your eyes in the worst case.
I had dry eyes post surgery. First 6 months I was miserable. Had to put goop on my eyes at night the viscosity of Vaseline. Felt like years before I got to a normal state.
It’s been about 16 years. I wear glasses again, but I can get by without. Still occasionally have dry eyes.
A friend of mine did a Lasik surgery, but lost his sight after a week (1/10 on one eye). AFAIK, there was no wrongdoing from the doctor side, so no financial compensation.
I think it was a good decision in my case, mainly because in my 20's I used to be into decently active activities (5ks runs, long distance biking, etc), so I didn't have to choose between seeing correctly or enjoying what I was doing to the fullest.
I know that outcomes vary but for me by now I don't actually remember what it was to be shortsighted and all outdoor activities are soo much nicer without contacts or glasses. I'd definitely do it again in a heartbeat.
It is one of the best things I did.
I read up on it before and didn't read something totally crazy but as with everything there is always risk to it.
That's one reason why I have problems to just suggesting it to everyone/anyone while my results are great.
But I also had 5 Dioptrien.
Wow, this is so stark. Is it genetic or is it something lifestyle related?
It would seem strange if it was genetic as glasses were invented quite late and vast population suffering from near sightedness without glasses seems like such a disadvantage.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15823276
[2] https://www.aao.org/editors-choice/sunlight-exposure-reduces...
Studying is good, and therefore it cannot be bad for your eyesight. Games, on the other hand, are bad and can only be associated with negatives.
"You'll get this when get older"
There was also Australian paper I cant find now, showing that prevalence of myopia in Asians in Australia is much lower due to school systen encouraging more free time and play outdoors. (not explainable by genetic factors)
Children must play outside in the sun or they become myopic.
So when you're looking at close screens or books for most of your day, the eye makes that be the "at rest" state, but now distant objects are blurry. Now if you insist on having distant objects not blurry (by wearing glasses _all the time_), it's the same situation again and the eye will "adapt" even more, and you'ell get more power glasses, and so on...
If that's true, then people with myopia shouldn't wear their glasses _all the time_, particularly when staring at close objects (screens and books). I have myopia and that explanation fits my experience. Most of the time I'm looking at a screen not wearing my glasses, and the screen is exactly at the right distance for me to not to have focus, so my eye is "at rest" for most of the day.
It sounds weird that a lot of eyes are dysfunctional. Maybe we don't understand how eyes find a trade-off that best suits your average focal distance. It also gives a rational as to why myopia went from a few 1% to 50% of the population in some countries. People started staring at close objects.
I don't know if it's actually true, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
My optometrist specifically prescribes me lenses/contacts that are slightly worse than optimal (i.e. -2.25 instead of -2.5) based on the fact that I stare at a computer screen the entire day. IIRC her explanation was along these lines, and I've had no degradation in eyesight in nearly a decade since. (I am not an optometrist, for god's sake find your own)
Your idea about allowing the eye to "rest" is not new and it has been the subject of several large scale clinical trials such as the COMET study linked below. In short, under correcting myopia does help to slow down progression. However, the benefit is too small to justify not fully correcting vision which will result in a better quality of life.
After WW2, Canadian Inuits started to send their children to school for the first time in history and myopia became endemic from that generation onwards.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1956268/
And to put the source in context:
- This was before the age of computers and smartphones so screen time was much less of a factor.
- Inuits traditionally spend a disproportionate time indoors due to the climate.
- The schooling was likely shorter and less stressful than those found in places like Japan and Korea, yet the effects are just as apparent.
Similar rises in myopia rate was observed when daily schooling was introduced to many other places, but few occur on the same scale. Thus it is possible that Asians and Inuits are genetically predisposed to myopia and it took until the modern age for this to become a problem.
There's less sunlight in the North during the winter, sure, but still several orders of magnitude more than inside (also, more UV etc.).
But this hypothesis also has problems. For example, less refined carbohydrates apparently do not lead to this. Also it does not explain how adding more meat to refined carbohydrates affects the mechanism.
I'm a Singaporean and we spent alot of time in our younger years straining our eyes on books and computers.
I tried the same technique. I went from wearing -3.5 contacts to -1.5 in about 3 months. The basic concept is forcing your eyes to read any text closeup (computer screen, books) at the edge of blur instead of it being in focus. That's basically all there is to it. People prefer laser surgery because it's less work than putting in the effort 8 hours a day for 3+ months at a time. I admit, I've given up after reaching -1.5, since it's good enough, but I'd like to rid myself of contacts entirely. The last 20% is 80% of the work, same principle applies :)
The basic premise is that opticians often over prescribe glasses. I've had this personally, an optician prescribed me glasses that were 0.75 dipole too strong for computer use, as the way they test (unless you ask otherwise) is for long distance vision (i.e. driving), not for 50cm in front of your eyes.
The theory is that your eye muscles become lazy as they don't need to work so hard, and you get used to that, so you need glasses to see clearly. If you look at distance text that is ever so slightly out of focus, eventually your vision system will figure out how to correct for that blur, and you will be able to see in focus. If you rinse and repeat, changing ever few months to a slightly weaker prescription (e.g. a reduction of 0.25) you can greatly reduce the strength of glasses you need.
I've only just started, but there are other comments on HN about people who have done this.
And I wouldn't like to describe myself as "having really high bullshit meter", it makes one overconfident when you do fall for one. I'd rather think I try to avoid emotional arguments and contexts in which I would be vulnerable.
It's up to you to believe in it or not
I personally haven't had the motivation to do it constantly/all the time
Read this guy @Aulig experience on that method https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29460591
it litereally only cost people money to purchase different power of glasses and time and effort to do practices on their eyes
The muscles controlling focus are smooth muscle*. That means it can't be exercised, it doesn't get bigger/stonger with use. It also doesn't get tired, which is fortunate since it's basically working all day.
Anything purported to "exercise" your eye into better vision is either outright sham or probably teaching you to recognize fuzzy things better.
* Quick review: you have three types of muscle: skeletal, smooth, and cardiac. Smooth muscle lines round things: arteries, intestines, iris, lens, etc.
“[Keratological] lenses correct your vision while you sleep. They do this by applying a controlled shape to the cornea which is the front surface of the eye, eliminating myopia (short –sightedness).”
For the uninitiated (as I was), they are hard plastic lenses that are worn at night. Initially the optometrist will take a variety or measurements of the eye and then a pair of lenses is manufactured. They are thicker than the standard disposable lenses and take a while to get used to and can be uncomfortable for a few weeks until you adjust to them. They work by shaping the outer part of the eye during sleep, when removed in the morning the outer part of the eyes have retained the shape from the lenses. Light entering the eye is then bent correctly and vision is almost 20/20.
If she was to stop wearing them her eyes would return to her standard myopic level, but hopefully not be any worse than before.
If so, you could get the same results by purchasing cheap, $5 reading glasses (+2.5 or something like that), and use those when reading on your phone.
Doing this, you effectively simulate that the screen you’re looking at is as far away as the horizon (and the characters you read as large as mountains).
You’d need to hold your phone far away enough that you touch the “blur boundary”. This gives your eye the stimulus to further relax its lens and, over time, for the eyeball to get shorter.
It’s like you’re slowly pushing the blur boundary of your eyes further and further towards optical infinity.
The exact value of the plus lens to use depends on a few factors. The distance between your eyes and the screen (or book), and the current diopter of your eyes (based in a vision test). There’s a formula for that you can google (I don’t remember it).
It induces a hormetic effect on the eyeballs, causing them to grow longer over time, inducing blurriness. As you increase the strength of the prescription glasses, the hormetic effect will continue in a feedback loop, worsening your vision as your eyeball elongates.
It's the same adaptation that causes muscles to weaken, strengthen, bones to harden, calluses to form.
"Well then, if that's true, why was my vision blurry as a child when I wasn't wearing glasses?"
The initial blurriness one experiences as a child isn't caused by glasses and is likely a consequence of the ciliary muscle becoming "exhausted" from prolonged staring up close. Your eye muscles are actually most relaxed when staring at objects in the far distance. It evolved that way. We didn't "evolve" for close up work.
We know glasses induce myopia because we can reliably cause myopia in all sorts of animals by making them wear contact lenses. There's no controversy about this. Feel free to look up the studies yourself.
What's less plausible is whether the axial elongation can be reversed in humans. And it does seem (with some effort and time) it can be, although there's considerably pushback from poorly designed scientific studies suggesting otherwise but lots of Internet communities of people who have improved their vision significantly.
You can induce a reverse hormetic effect by wearing glasses that are on the "border" of blurriness and staring at objects in the distance for long periods of time. In other words, wear slightly weaker prescription glasses than what you're currently wearing; one for close-up work and one for far distance so you're always just on the "edge" of blurriness.
You can usually improve your vision at a rate of 0.75 diopters per year if you do this consistently.
At this point, I usually get a lot of disbelief and criticisms, links to randomized controlled studies suggesting the opposite. I get into arguments trying to explain how those studies were set up wrong, people call me crazy, etc. It's pretty annoying.
So I simply offer this: If you wear glasses, try ordering a slightly weaker version from Zenni Optical (or any store of your choosing). Try it for a year. See what happens.
It's cheap. And low risk.
"Don't I need a prescription?"
You do, in the sense that you need your prescription strength number, but the word "prescription" here is a misnomer. Anybody can order prescription glasses online legally. It's like ordering socks. It is not like ordering prescription drugs. Completely different legal classifications.
But if you're still skeptical, I ask you to think about this problem from first principles for a moment.
If Homo Sapiens started naturally going blind from the age of 9, our ancestors would not have survived long. Most animals that have poor vision usually compensate with some other sense. And while it may be possible humans just naturally evolved to have terrible vision, studies of other populations (like the Moken population that can see underwater and have near-perfect vision) suggest it's likely a modern problem.
There is a stressor. What is the stressor? It's multi-variate, but the most influential in modernity is wearing glasses.
I wear two pairs. One for close-up work (so it's slightly blurry when I'm programming). And another that's much stronger (and safer) for driving. So I can see all the stop signs clearly, but the mountains in the distance are just blurry. In this way, I'm always at the "edge" of blurriness.
There's a few other techniques you can do, but that one is the easiest to maintain. (Interestingly enough, people who hike outdoors a lot seem to do the best).
As you improve you'll find yourself ordering weaker and weaker prescriptions (although the closer you get to 0 diopters, the longer it seems to take).
I wonder if the reason why it takes longer as you approach 0 diopters is because at that point the signal received by the brain is enough such that the brain can learn to "deconvolve" the image (blur adaption), removing any incentive for further axial shrinking.
Edit: actually going further I wonder if the stressor you mentioned is indeed actually ciliary accommodation. This is known to be very taxing (hence why people get eye strain from looking at computers for a long time), so it makes sense that the body would adapt to relieve this stressor by elongating the eyeball itself so that the screen can now sit at optical infinity.
It is also a relatively well-known result from large correlative studies that time spent outdoors decreases the chance for myopia. I read something about how it was total luminous flux of the bright outdoors that helped to prevent progression of myopia – just something to think about, especially given the recent trend of blue light blocking glasses. Who knows if those wavelengths might actually be needed in some subtle manner for optical development.
But note that because convergence and accommodation are linked, without any accommodation there might be a greater tendency for the eye to develop exophorias. I wonder if you look at the data you might see a high correlation between exophoria and myopia?
I've had tremendous frustration from optometrists insisting that I have a fixed prescription, but invariably whatever they prescribe me ends up wrong. In the end I ignored my optometrist, found a way to order online and ordered every single prescription for contacts from -5.5 to -6.5 with a couple of options for other parameters and literally just tried them all.
What I found was that my "correct" prescription really, truly varies, ... even over a period of just days. So I ended up just switching between different contacts as needed. But one effect I observed is that a great sequence was to wear slightly under-strength lenses for a week or so and then switch up a level. This seems to do what you suggest ... my eyes then slot into the correct strength with improved comfort and vision and often stabilise there.
Every now and then, everything tips over (often if I get a really bad sleep for some reason) and then I go back to the "slightly under strength" option to try and reset.
All of this I've figured out purely empiracally because I've been so unhappy with the options that multiple optometrists provided me .... so its nice to hear someone say something vaguely similar to what I experience!
Take a look at this chart:
https://static2.feelgoodcontacts.net/images/astigmatism-degr...
Basically all the lines should look equally sharp when your vision is corrected. In my case - if I don't wear glasses and move close enough to see it clearly - the horizontal lines have a shadow going upwards, where as the vertical lines are sharp. The shadow is strongest on the 0 degree and 180 degree lines, meaning I have an astigmatism at one of those.
This doesn't tell you what the correction should be, but it tells you if you have it.
It's said that -0.25 diopters is not noticeable by 50% of population, and especially for base prescriptions <= -2 ish the scale of distance quickly becomes negligible (e.g. a +1.25 add would give 31 inches and a +1.5 add is 26 inches, so only a 5" difference which is basically negligible. Also note that as one commenter noted, I've found my focusing ability changes throughout the day and also based on stress, sleep level etc., so that on a good day I might not need the glasses at all to see up to 32".
A final point is that if you end up going too weak you might find your posture being affected as you inch your neck forward to try to adjust. You could consciously try to prevent this, but I'm sure involuntary habits will kick in, so I think it's better to just choose a prescription precisely calculated for the focal length you want.
In principle the stressor explanation would hold for astigmatism as well, and you could try the same of reducing the cylindrical power as well. N=1 but I've found astigmatism is more easily corrected by the brain, such that you might not even need correction for a -1 cyl power whereas you'd definitely see blurriness at -1 sph.
I'd like to know more. Why do you think they were set up wrong? (Not trying to get into an argument, I honestly don't know)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/10/the-invisible-p...
[2] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/disinformation-playbook
Now I couldn't find support for it anywhere so I was thinking this might be a case of a very reasonable explanation that turns out to be wrong. Is there some literature on this?
I ordered slightly undercorrected glasses (-2/-2.5 instead of -2.25/-2.75) exactly a year ago to try the same, and it did nothing for my myopia. I use the undercorrected glasses all the time, except when driving at night and when playing sports, and nothing has changed. I still use them all the time because the cheap frame I chose turned out to be very comfortable, more than the expensive one from my regular glasses.
At first I had some hope because for the first days using the undercorrected glasses I would end up with a strong headache in the evening; when this passed I figured that maybe my eyes had begun adjusting. But every time I try the regular and undercorrected glasses side-by-side, I see noticeably better with the regular ones (I sometimes test this just by eyeballing something afar, or by reading a home-printed Snellen chart 3 meters away).
I figured some people have glass-induced myopia, and some people just have myopia.
For liability reasons (e.g. driving) optometrists tend to err on the side of stronger rather than weaker, so most prescriptions are for distance activity. If you're spending many hours with screens that are at arms length or closer, then reducing a distance-driving prescription by 0.25 may not be enough to reach the "edge of blur" for closeup vision.
The https://endmyopia.org community has more info. If you don't have the time to learn about measurements and feedback testing, look for a local optometrist who endorses vision therapy and can work iteratively with you.
This comment may be relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30112144
Would you say that glasses cure hyperopia in most people?
on a sunny day, outdoor, the -2 glasses works just fine. not 99% eagle eye precision, but like 90% precision, overkill to see car plates and directions.
does the intensity of light from sun cut -2 from -4 requirement?
More details: https://endmyopia.org/why-vision-is-worse-at-night-and-on-cl...
Did you identify anything incorrect about the page's statements on night vision?
I don't understand why would this work. It implies that stimulating the retina affects the shape of the eye somehow..
> How to Do It Right
1. Assume the standard yogic posture for meditation, preferably cross-legged.
2. Light a candle, at a distance of about three feet, in front of you. You can also keep any other object than a candle if you prefer.
3. Ensure the candle or any other object of focus is at your eyelevel.
4. Watch it unblinking for a minimum of seven minutes. You can gradually increase the duration.
5. During the actual practice, try to be aware of your wandering thoughts and gently bring your mind back to the object.
> Please see the chart below:
> You will notice that still body and still gaze are red impact items, which means if you move your body or shift your gaze while practising trataka; that is instant failure. Reset the clock and start again. If you are unable to control your eye movement and end up blinking, it’s not a problem, simply be mindful and carry on. You may experience your thoughts flow. Ideally it should be restricted but it is natural and a green impact item, which means you don’t have to stop your practice. Let us say you decide to do trataka for a period of seven minutes. For those seven minutes, you must be still like a rock restricting your eye movements as well. It is important to not blink at all. Tears will start to roll down, but you should stay unmoved. If it gets really uncomfortable, you can blink. The ability to not blink improves over time and with practice. Each time your mind goes off the tangent, bring your focus back to the object. You can do trataka on any object, but doing it on a candle flame has a purifying effect on the mind. It is best to do the practice at least twice a day: in the morning and before going to bed at night.
> Steadily and gradually increase your ability to stay unblinking as part of this practice. It requires patience and resolve.
0: https://www.amazon.com/Million-Thoughts-Meditation-Himalayan...
> as the participants were students, they were asked to perform the exercises and the Trataka before and after the college hours, respectively. This caused inconvenience for the students to do the activities regularly.
As mentioned from the book, the exercise has to be done regularly for 40 days at least, with the quality required as mentioned. The study itself disclaims the quality in the effort of participant, so there's not much doubt that it couldn't replicate any significant result.
Not to say that Trataka will work for everyone; however, yogic exercises are harmless (if you follow the instructions from authentic sources), and those are usually helpful if you're able to apply them properly.
So, there's no harm in trying
Who would have thought that we need a bit of natural environment to develop properly.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/22/e2018840118 https://www.myopiaprofile.com/why-outdoor-time-matters-in-my....