Apple Vision Pro: An Eye Dr's Review - Is it BAD for Our Eyes?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- 🌟 Discover the Impact of Apple's Vision Pro on Eye Health with Your Eye Show! 🌟
Join us in our latest episode, "Apple's Vision Pro: A New Era or a New Concern?" hosted by the insightful optometrist Dr. Ed Wallington. In collaboration with DeliverContacts.com, we delve into the intriguing world of virtual reality and its effects on our eyes.
Visit us for your lens needs and more eye care insights:
delivercontact...
In This Episode:
Apple's Vision Pro Analyzed: Unravel the mysteries of Apple's latest foray into virtual reality. Is the Apple Vision Pro a groundbreaking innovation, or does it pose risks to our eye health? Dr. Wallington provides expert insights into how this cutting-edge technology might affect our vision.
Exclusive Insights and Tips: Learn how to enjoy the immersive world of VR while taking care of your eyes. Get practical advice and eye care tips in the age of virtual reality.
Special Offers from DeliverContacts.com: Benefit from ALWAYS LOW PRICES and FREE DELIVERY on top brand contact lenses. No gimmicks, just great deals.
Visit us for your lens needs and more eye care insights:
delivercontact...
#VisionPro, #AppleVisionPro, #VR, #VirtualReality
This video is great and super interesting. At 43:40 there's something that seems like a slight mistake, if I'm not mistaken: The focal length in the headset will definitely be further than looking at a laptop screen. But, the way you present it here makes it seem like the focal length will actually be whatever distance you put your virtual objects/screens at. This would be great, but unfortunately isn't the case with standard pancake lenses like the Vision Pro's, which have a single focal distance. They haven't disclosed what this distance is, but if it's like other similar headsets, it should be 1.2-1.3 meters (about 4 feet), so that's like watching a TV that's about at this distance. Meaning it should be better for eye health than a laptop, but your ciliary muscles will still be slightly flexed, so you should still remove the headset regularly to focus on things that are far away (for example follow the 20-20-20 rule, where every 20 minutes you focus on something at least 20 feet away for at least 20 seconds). Varifocal lenses, in the future, could change this, but they're not in any consumer headsets yet.
Extra tip: You'll still want to start the day with at least 30 minutes of natural day light, to regulate your circadian rhythm. Blue light from screens won't be as effective as natural light. And as you know, avoid screens at night time if possible, which does the opposite.
Thank you for your insight and kind support. And especially thank you for watching this video all the way through. I do agree that the vergence-accommodation conflict does need a deeper explanation, and I will have an all-inclusive separate (probably a half hour or so) video of its own. I will create that video as soon as I can, but it's going to have to wait until I have a complete understanding Apple's and other newer VR designs' implications on both vergence and accommodation. My intended point was, as you have already explained, the eye is relieved of extra accommodative duties when compared to laptops or desktops, but I can see how it can be inferred that I was suggesting that it was a perfect system of focus and convergence within the video's explanation. Though it is kind of what I implied, it was not exactly the mark that I was trying to get across. I later touched upon "the more an image is matched with 'Real Images' the less motion sick," but to expect that the brain would still recognize a "mismatch," and adapt. This focus mismatch was one of the imperfections that I was indirectly referencing without fully opening that can of worms. My overall message was that there is currently no reason to think that VR or these 'resets' are actually harmful to the eye and, if anything with the Apple expectations, should only be better than anything we have done so far. Your points about "taking breaks" and "sleep disruption" are also both relevant to limit the problems associated with excessive use of VR/computers/laptops/phones, but are not singularly VR problems. However, maybe you're right, a video for good habits should probably be included along the way as well. Again, I thank you for watching as far as you did. Thank you for the support. Please keep watching, and I promise to try to give better explanations as I go. And always, keep doing this, reach out when you catch my mistakes or feel that I gave an awkward explanation that needs clarification. I appreciate that. Feedback can only help. Your comments will definitely help me moving forward.
yes the vergence accomodation is huge issue - for example, fully see through devices, like Microsoft Hololens2 do not have as much of an issue as most of the "world" is actually natural, whereas all-display devices, like all VR headsets to date, are painful after a while for this reason@@YourEyeShow
Check out my new video regarding the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict
ruclips.net/video/c5uOWKlY17o/видео.html
Just amazing ! Thank you so much for such valuable and interesting information !
Dude your shirt ruined my eyes
☠️
🤣🤣🤣
That was the first thing I noticed, that was a pretty cool effect but I think happening solely from his use of a green-screen.
I recently had lasik and am planning to buy this at launch, I'm assuming this won't be an issue for how it reads the eye? I now have 20/20 (or close enough to it) and hope that improves this experience. Lasik was the best money ever spent (other than buying the APV soon!) TY - great vid
Thank you for watching. No worries, LASIK will not bother the tracking system.
Eye tracking for the user interface and OpticID (biometric iris scanning) are 2 different issues. Eye tracking is not affected.
However, if you enroll your iris pattern into the device and then get LASIK, you may need to re-enroll. Those surgeries do not directly affect the iris, but they do change your cornea, which could change the way light refracts. Other consumer electronic devices with iris scanning mention such caveats in their documentation.
I can sit at my computer for 8 hours, with no eyestrain or neckstrain.
8 hours with Vision Pro is not going to work, there will be considerable strain and sense of isolation too. Vision Pro has weight, and you will feel it after awhile. Plus the battery dies after 2 or 2.5 hours.
I'm considering AVP for neck health, I rest my hands when on my phone.
Great video! So, what is your general conclusion to the Apple Vision Pro? Is it better than a traditional monitor in terms of eye health?
Neither a traditional monitor nor the Apple Vision Pro are harmful to the eye. Monitors require more accommodation, which can lead to strain, and the Vision Pro requires adaptation to an improving, yet imperfect, virtual world, which can cause adaptation fatigue. As far as actual health, neither should be considered as harmful to the eye based upon current understanding of the eye. You may get strain and visual fatigue, but that doesn't equate to harm or damage. Example, it's kind of like asking is bench pressing or doing curls more harmful to muscles... neither are harmful, yet both will require a certain amount of work in different ways.
I’ve had cataract surgery in my eyes. The new lenses are set for distance correction only consequently, I wear glasses to provide mid range and close-up, reading vision, thinking of the Vision Pro, and the fact that the screens are an inch or two away from your eye and the image is formed an inch or two away from the eye, won’t correction need to be for a very close-up scene the surface of those screens? Since my lenses cannot flex and provide that sort of close-up correction, then I assume I would need either contact lenses or those Zeiss magnetic lenses to be set to a very close to enable a very close focus, is that your understanding?
This is a great question. The intent of the VR is designed so that light is as parallel as possible, but it is not perfect. Some focus is still necessary, however, but it is not based on the distance the lens is from the eye, instead, it is built into the optical design of the system. Focus requirement with VR systems (though I do not know what Apple's) is often requiring +0.75 D, which is not significant, and usually is not bothersome left uncorrected to the normal eye. To see a typical desktop computer, for example, +1.25 diopters of fucus is necessary, and +0.75 is less than that. But that is only IF you are truly perfectly focused (emmetropic) after cataract surgery for far away... perfection is not usually the normal post cataract. Often, post cataract, an eye will be up to -0.50ish to +0.50ish diopters off emmetropia and perhaps with some uncorrected astigmatism, and released without glasses (lower dioptric powers aren't always necessary for people). If your Rx is actually at zero or is in the low minus power, the need for any additional focus will not likely be necessary. If you are left in the low plus after surgery, this additional focus requirement will probably push you over the edge and some extra power would be appreciated. For example, I am currently using the Meta Quest 3, which uses pancake lenses and I have a low plus power script (@ +0.50 Diopter) that I do not require for normal distant viewing. However, being 51 years old, my near focus is gone. In the VR space with the meta, I am definitely benefited with my glasses for higher quality detail and visual comfort (though I can function without them, I prefer not). It will be interesting if the new design and enhanced detail in the Apple Vision Pro will decrease the need for the extra Rx, or make me want it more. I don't know, but I guess we will soon find out. In your circumstance, your Rx may be shifted to the minus side and additional Rx might not be necessary. In the end, I would suggest, first get your precise prescription from your doctor (if you have some plus power, you're more likely to need help, but if you're low minus or zero, you may be able to get by without it) and test the Vision Pro without it before you make a purchase for the optics using the script. Like I said, good question. I plan to explore the answer and comment more. Thank you.
Never thought about not being able to wear glasses with the vision pro. Interesting.
Thank you, and Thanks for watching.
Oh thank you so much! This makes so much sense. I play (learn) board games in order to keep my brain challenged. It now makes more sense that you need special lenses if you are myopic but don’t need special lenses if you can see distance .. even though the lenses are so close to your eyes.
We are glad to hear we've helped you learn something new!
This video is deeply informative!
I'm sure you've heard that the Vision Pro doesn't currently support wearers of hard contact lenses (it's one of the questions that comes up when you're pre-ordering.) Neither the questionnaire nor Apple's literature on accessibility have mentioned or make a differentiation between RGPs and Scleral lenses. When you said that the eye-tracking in the Vision Pro watches a point on the cornea, I surmised that it might get confused if the contact lenses happen to move around due to blinking or eye movement. Any thoughts as to why hard contact lenses may not work with the Vision Pro as well as soft contact lenses?----Which also tend to move around a lot! (And Scleral lenses don't have this problem.)
Since you're asking for thoughts... I got some, but I do not have absolute answers, just speculation. We're going to have to hear from Apple to be sure.
Though I explained that a focal point on the cornea is tracked with this device, I do not exactly know how it is achieved (though I expected retina reflections or using iris points, nothing in the early literature explained it clearly). My video intent was to help my viewers understand how the device could recognize what we are looking at and what must be tracked (the line of focus that ultimately begins at one point on the cornea and ends at the fovea).
A soft contact lens conforms to the cornea, overlaps on both sides, and is allowed for use with the Vision Pro. A cosmetic (color) soft contact lens (that fits the same) is not allowed. Why? A cosmetic lens must block the iris from being recognized. This may simply complicate Optic ID, but perhaps it also disrupts the tracking system if the iris is utilized.
An RGP, since it does not overlap the edges of the cornea, may also interfere with the Vision Pro from identifying points on the iris, and therefore disrupt Optic ID as well, and perhaps the tracking too if iris points are utilized.
A point of consideration, however, is that a soft contact lens conforms to the cornea, but RGP's and scleral lenses do not. If reflections are used, then I could also see how hard designs (rgp's and scleral's) could confuse the system since they will have vaulted zones for optical correction that uses the pooling tears in their design.
Perhaps its separate issues?... a vaulted lens and blocked iris points make the tracking AND Optik ID inefficient?... and to reduce inefficiency of their new design, the simple answer is to say "No cosmetic soft lenses or RGP's."?
Great question. Thanks for watching, and thanks for the support. I will share more when I learn more.
What do you think?
@@YourEyeShow Thanks for the reply!
TL, DR is that I wear scleral lenses. The little experience I've had with RGPs was... painful. And with severe nearsightedness + keratoconus--(possibly due to years of use/abuse of soft contacts), sclerals have allowed me to achieve the finest vision I've experienced in my life.
Glasses at my prescription also bend light considerably, and therefore I'm assuming the Zeiss prescription lenses Apple is offering will as well.
However, with regard to reflections, the bubble of fluid between a scleral lens and the cornea make the structure appear (at least in visible light) contiguous right up to the iris; as if the cornea itself was just made a little thicker. Perhaps its a matter of the surface texture of the lens itself?
Oh well, all my questions will be answered when I take this thing for a test drive next month. I may end up saving money... (Or not.)
Please share your experience. I'm looking forward to hearing how it goes. Thanks again.
VR could be better then staring at ur phone or computer since the screen is actually a lot farther distance then what we look at with our phones and computers I still don’t recommend staring at it 8 hrs a day tho
Lol what are you talking about? The screens are maybe less than 2 inches away from your eyes. What you are seeing only simulates that the screens are further away. The cameras of the Vision Pro are filming the reality outside and show it on the little screens in front of your eyes creating a transparency effect.
just wow.. superb job has done by you .. apriciated your work.. from PAKISTAN👍
Thank you PAKISTAN!
Well you seem to cover several things about our eyes and using VR, but I still did not find in the video the final conclusion of - are wearing VR headsets and the lenses so close to our eyes bad for us, especially for long periods of time. It can't be good!!!!
I know I would not wear a VR headset all day. I use VR for gaming and only do it for an hour or two. I feel no strain, but I do not want to overdo using VR. Wearing a VR headset to me, is like sitting 1 or 2 feet from a large LCD monitor.
This topic should be good for all VR headsets not just Apple Vision. I have several VR headsets for the PC.
Thank you for watching and commenting.
I agree that anything done in excess could potentially have negative consequences... even staying in the virtual reality for too long. However, the consequences are not expected to be damaging to the eyes or vison. Yes, your eyes may get dry, and yes, you may get digital device fatigue, and yes, you may get motion sick, and yes, there may be social impacts... but to insist that their will be damage is contrary to the message that I was sending. I spent an hour explaining that there is no damage to our eyes without a direct answer (sorry), but my direct answer is "No, there is no reason to expect long term damage to our eyes from VR."
In a long stretch hypothetical situation, perhaps in the developing visual system of the unlikely child who is immersed in VR during their developmental years in continuous excess and do not perceive natural vision experiences, then perhaps there could be harmful visual developmental issues, but the typical exposure (few hours per day), even for a developing child, should not even slightly be expected to be HARMFUL or BAD for vision.
Actually it has been known for decades that the occipital lobe of the brain does not “make the image”. Information processing begins by nerve cells immediately behind the receptor cells. What is sent along the optic nerve through the brain is edge information, pattern information, location mapping information, shape information, etc. What arrives at the occipital lobe is not an image but rather highly processed information about the interpreted meaning of what was seen by the eye. The visual processing center in the occipital lobe is not at all like the film at the back of a camera. And it is certainly not the site of any pixel to pixel representational mapping of the image on the back of the retina to an equivalent area in the occipital lobe.
Thank you for watching and commenting. I agree that the brain is NOT like a pixel to pixel arrangement like a pixelated screen, that is why I suggested that this arrangement is comparable to the the RETINA in the back of our eyes where light is focused. In full disclosure, only our finest tuned photoreceptors in the center of the fovea may have a 1:1 ratio of receptor to nerve. The further you get away from the fovea, the greater the ratio. That's why fine detail is less appreciated away from our central fovea... the ratio of receptor to nerve rises significantly, but I think that the analogy holds for understanding. And, it should probably be noted, a blue receptor only interprets blue, and red receptor only interprets red, and green only interprets green... each receptor does NOT respond to every color like a pixel can emits, but the analogy can still be applied. You are even also correct that there are cells in the retina whose entire job is for interpreting other things such as motion as well, but that does not dismiss the layout explanation. Photoreceptors are jammed in tightly (like teeny-tiny light receiving pixels on a screen) across our retina. And, if the messages received on the retina do not reach the brain, then there is NO VISION. The brain must process these images for sight to happen. The retina is an extension of the brain (cranial nerve 2), but it is brain the must interpret the details within the visual cortex of the occipital lobe and in association with the rest of the brain for understanding. I agree, that its not mapped like the retina. In fact, all light that enters the eye from the left side of our sight is processed in neuro cells on the right side of our visual cortex, and light from the right side of vision is processed on the left side of our vision cortex... its not a map like our retina at all, but don't not think that there is not a pattern to the layout there either. This brain "map" pattern is often used in visual fields tests to help identify locations of potential lesions (tumors, strokes, damage) along the optic nerve, chiasm, tract, and lobes. I understand your concern if my explanation made it sound like there was a tv screen in our brain, but that is not what I intended. Instead, the pixel to pixel was only intended to explain the layout of our retina to people who are not aware of the basics of retinal images. Again, thanks for watching. I do appreciate the comment. It gives me a chance to clarify things.
Thank you. Everyone should watch this just to get to know how our eyes work…wealth of knowledge in this video 🙏🏼✨
Thank you for watching and for the kind words of support! It is wonderful to hear that you appreciated it.
Thanks for this. My question is about near sightedness. VR tricks our brains into thinking that things are in the distance... are our eyes fooled as well? In other words, when we look into 'the distance', are our eyes using all of its associated muscles to do so?
Light is divergent in nature, but light coming at us from beyond 20 feet is essentially parallel by the time it reaches your eye. When objects get closer, light becomes more evidently divergent. - If our eyes are fully corrected, light focuses on the fovea and the ciliary focus muscles within our eyes are completely relaxed when we are looking far away. When a corrected eye looks up close, the focal point of light shifts behind the fovea as an object moves closer, and our eye must FOCUS its lens by flexing the ciliary muscles. - With the Vision Pro, objects that appear far away will not just appear far away, but the light emitted will also be parallel, so the eye does NOT have to focus at all to see it. So when we shift our screen from 24 inches to the wall across the room in the headset image, then the eye could go from a constant FOCUS posture, to a completely RELAXED. It's not a trick, it math with optics.
WarrenSmith2546: A better response to your question is necessary, as we did not address the question appropriately. You are apparently addressing the issue of whether the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict has been corrected with the Apple Vision Pro. Our quick response did not address the issue. WE DO NOT KNOW if this has been resolved, but are confident that the increased optical details should offer a minimizing of the effect... if the far away focal distance is as suggested ( closer to 7 feet - not parallel light- versus than 20 feet -near parallel light-, then the required focus would be at about 0.50 diopters (100cm/200cm = 0.50 diopter), and not be a complete match of zero distance focus and parallel light. So, perhaps our eyes will be "fooled" like you say. As discussed in the video, there will still be imperfections that are going to require adaptations, but overall this product design should be a HUGE step in the right direction. Again, this is a first generation device, and we do not have experiences with the device either, so we can not authoritatively address the perceptual experience, only speculate and teach what we know. The discussion of the video was more intended to address "Is the Vision Pro bad for our eyes?" (no) and explain with simplicity the optical concerns of the Vision Pro associated with eye health. The mismatch to which you are still having questions is extremely valid, and it is one of those problems that may still require the "reset" adaptation. However, we will definitely discuss this concern as soon as we can give you a better response. So, stay in touch. Thank you for your question and keeping us on our toes. (We are sorry that we didn't initially recognize its actual intention.)
Thanks for your thorough responses and follow up!
My question is if your eyes are corrected for distance in your cataract surgery (the lenses Medicare covers) will the distance correction work with the Vision Pro screens that close to the eye. Will you require a-2.75 or greater adjustment to see clearly that close to the eye?
Check out my new video regarding the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict if you're interested. It pertains to this question from 6 months ago that you asked.
ruclips.net/video/c5uOWKlY17o/видео.html
Amazing technology. I'm sure they'll be new versions coming out as a work out the bugs what do you explain this well doc without going into so much detail that it's difficult to understand. I can't wait to try one out.
Yeah, I got a little carried away with the explanation this time. I will try to make updates sweet and simple. Thanks for watching.
46:18. That is not how it works. The Vision Pro is using fixed optics, so the focal plan is fixed in space as well. The "perception" of something being far or near has nothing to do with your focal plane, thus it will do nothing to effect eyestrain (as your eyes will have to maintain that fix focus, just like when you're sitting in front of a computer). The effect of things looking far or near is achieved through stereo positioning, so it's purely an optical illusion. There are some designs for "holographic" displays, that have variable distance focal planes, so that they can position the image physically at different focal points, which would cause you to adjust your focus, but the Vision Pro does not use these, and they are still very rudimentary lab only efforts at this time.
Thank you for watching this video. You are not the only person who has had issues with how I described the "focus" relief with VR, as it is apparently misleading. I'm happy to hear that you have a better understanding of the concept to comprehend its imperfect explanation and use of vocabulary, and I am committed to explain the convergence and accommodation association in an shortly upcoming video for clarification. My intent (as to answer is VR harmful to the eye) was to explain that the eye does not have to focus (accommodate) as hard with VR as compared to a book or computer. In this video section, I used the term FOCUS, when I should have more appropriately termed ACCOMMODATIVE REFLEX (which includes the accommodation, convergence, and pupil constriction). Though accommodative requirements do not change, the convergence requirements do. So a screen set across the room will relieve an added convergence requirement, even if it is unnatural in setting. Later, in the video, I talked about imperfections that will still require "resets" by our brain. Resets that can be uncomfortable at first (including this vergence-accommodation conflict), but we can adapt to them without harming our eye or brain or even adding work to the system. Yes, it's different than what is natural, and my be uncomfortable at first, but we are capable of adapting, especially when other details such as resolution and lag are improved. And in the end, as I was trying to point out, VR is easier on the muscles needed for FOCUS and easier on vergence, when we move an image across the room. No, not perfect, the Accommodative Reflex is disturbed, but the overall work requirement of the eye is alleviated when an image is enlarged and moved across the room. I will make a better, all-inclusive video later to cover the details and share how this affects our day-to-day experience even without VR, and I do hope you will return for it. I greatly appreciate your comments and your interest. VR/AR is the wave of the future, and I hope to keep that people like you will keep me in line and creating better content as we move forward. Thanks again, please keep in touch.
Check out my new video regarding the Vergence-Accommodation Conflict.
ruclips.net/video/c5uOWKlY17o/видео.html
This is an awesome comprehensive video. I also appreciate your comments on the Vergence accommodation, that helped me understand the video content in that section better.
I wanted to ask about the eye tracking. I am guessing the eye tracking will use structured light most likely, or lasers. But regardless is outside of normal visual range. In your opinion is that more likely to be towards the IR side? I would imagine that with UV having shorter wavelengths than IR it would provide higher accuracy? But perhaps the IR wavelength is so short compared to the size of what it’s tracking it’s sufficiently accurate? Also I presume IR is not likely to be damaging to our eyes for the low power needed for eye tracking unlike UV?
I guess my question is do you think the eye tracking poses any risks?
The tracking uses LED infrared technology (just outside our visible spectrum) that is not harmful to the eye. Ultraviolet light is absorbed and destructive to our cornea tissue (as with welder's flash and LASIK), visible light could be seen within the headset and would be bothersome, but infrared is invisible to the eye and not even noticed by the eye at low intensity levels such as the LED. Realize this... infrared light is present in every day daylight, all day long, without being harmful, just like visible light is present everyday (that's how we see things), and it's not harmful, right? And at the times you do feel infrared at higher intensity, you feel it as heat energy... temperature rises, tissue is not destroyed. But since this infrared is low intensity and is not amplified (as with a laser), it never reaches a point that we can even sense the presence of IR anymore than we can when we are looking around our homes. Also, even though I am not a technical expert nor a designer of the Apple Pro, I would bet that Apple is following all safety protocols associated with protecting their customers from eye damage. So, NO, I do not think eye tracking poses any risks to the safety of the eye. Great question... thank you.
never heard someone describe an apple product as a steal.😂
LOL... funny thing is... I haven't bought one yet... so perhaps it's not exactly a good buy either... it was my way of looking at it from another angle... a way to justify a purchase perhaps... that I still haven't brought myself to make... but in the end, it's true... I couldn't have put all that technology together myself for $3500 if I wanted to... so in the end, it's a steal ( just not a steal that I have taken advantage of yet)... I've watched the reviews of others, and I have the quest 3 already, so I'm having difficulty pulling the trigger, even after my video... I can't even talk myself into breaking out my wallet. Thanks for watching.
55:00 No it's not "good for your brain" if you have work to be done being overwhelmed by useles colorfull crap, just as minimalism in GUI modern OSes it's NOT better for brain, if do not gives enough colors, of icons, 3D sense of depth, aint that simple..
How does this optik ID work does that run off of a retinal scan? That's what they need to do at the voting booth LOL.
It appears to be an iris scan instead. The iris is the color part of the eye and offers the same "fingerprint" unique identification detail that a retina does.
@@YourEyeShow it's a great biometric tool. And much quicker than comparing fingerprints. I think in the future will start seeing that used more and more as far as verifying who you are for purchases and for voting and other things.
Your shirt is hurting my eyes
I only said the VR wouldn't damage the eyes. I didn't make any claim about the safety of my videos!
Lmao
I wonder if 20 years from now, that this eye doctor will be seen as the same types of doctors who recommended cigarette smoking?😂
LOL. Gosh, I hope not. The purpose of this video is share knowledge and alleviate the unsupported fear. It would be terrible if unlikely and unforseen ocular problems ever did arise. I'd feel terrible. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@YourEyeShow My concern is that just like headphones and earphones, seem to cause hearing damage, I’m wondering if the Vision Pro may be injurious to the eyes? Time will tell?
This video was to designed to explain how there is not evidential support for why we should fear harming of our vision sense from VR.
@@YourEyeShow Yes, but we don’t know the long range side effects at present. Time will tell.
True. Time will tell.