There have been a number of excellent and interesting papers written on the theoretic aspects of aniseikonia.1 There have been a few papers written on the clinical symptoms and the results of treatment.2 In general, however, these papers have been statistical. One can find a few papers critical of aniseikonia, such as those of Ludvigh,3 Friedenwald4 and Edward Jackson.5 Unfortunately most of these authors apparently wrote at the library table and did not take the necessary time to prove or disprove experimentally many of their statements of physiologic facts. Most of the fundamental ideas expressed in their papers have been proved experimentally to be wrong.
Ophthalmologists as a group have been skeptical in accepting the reported therapeutic results obtained in correcting aniseikonia. Their skepticism is due to a number of causes. First, the symptoms of aniseikonia are purely subjective and therefore might be relieved by
HICKS AM. ANISEIKONIA: A REVIEW OF 200 CONSECUTIVE CASES EXAMINED ON THE EIKONOMETER. Arch Ophthalmol. 1943;30(3):298–311. doi:10.1001/archopht.1943.00880210022002
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: