The baby vision blurred myth

[becomingagodo]

Althought I will try and find the studies listed in the article, however it seems to make sense.
http://www.ski.org/Vision/babyvision.html
Were being lied too. I thought babies where blind because of their eye where some how undeveloped, however this is saying that a part of the babies brain is undeveloped causing the baby to have bad vision aculity. Basically a part of your brain that tells the different between stuff is not develope causing the baby to have a vision of 20/120 which is 6 times worse then a adult. It also said that babies can focus their on things however it might be crap at it like focusing to far or focusing to close.
Can someone read the link and comment on this, I can't see anything wrong with the research. So basically a baby could proberly see your eyes or nose e.t.c. perfectly, however things that are smaller then the big E on the eye exams the baby can't see bellow that intill about two months.
We now know that a very young baby's acuity is at least 6 times worse than adult acuity. Again, this is not because infants cannot "focus" well. Rather, it is limited by immaturities in the nervous system. Nevertheless, they are still capable of having a rich visual world. Think of it this way. If you hold up your thumb at arms length, it will be about 6 times wider than the big "E" ! This means that a newborn infant can easily see many of the things most important to him or her: your eyes, your lips and smile, your nose, and his or her own hands, fingers, feet and toes.

Well, I am pretty annoyed at being lied too, espically since I didn't even check the claim just accepted it as fact. Well, anybody?

[HawkeyeMD]

I don't think anyone ever claimed that babies were 'blind'--or if they have, I missed it. They don't see as well as adults, or as well as they will as their brains develop; that is quite true. Babies' muscles are not well controlled yet, for the same reasons--the neurons in their brains that will control them are not yet fully migrated to their 'mature' locations and they are not fully myelinated. This is a process that happens over the first several years of life and it doesn't just affect the eyes--this is why it takes time for children to learn to do all kinds of things: sitting up, standing, walking, hopping, passing an object from one hand to another. All the things that we call 'milestones'. Focussing the eyes is part of that (though that in itself is not what your article means about development in the brain), but it is one of the reasons babies don't focus well and often look 'cross-eyed'.

I wouldn't waste time getting upset about being "lied" to. If someone told you babies were born blind, they are incorrect, but so what? Personally, I find the process fascinating, but then I'm going into child neurology. If you want me to carry on further about the visual system, I'm happy to, but I don't want to bore you to tears. ;)

[Miss Anthrope]

Thanks for the incredibly informative and useful answer, H.

[becomingagodo]

I have been told that the baby has really poor vision, like the baby is looking through thick glass. However this is saying that the baby has 20/120 vision, which is not bad. The point is that baby can actually see decently, I thought a baby couldn't see your facial features, however this is saying they can.

Babies' muscles are not well controlled yet, for the same reasons--the neurons in their brains that will control them are not yet fully migrated to their 'mature' locations and they are not fully myelinated.
Yeah, however this is saying that control of vision does not cause the babies problem. A newborn baby could still see large contrast objects and it could proberly see your nose or eyes, if your close enough.
This is a process that happens over the first several years of life and it doesn't just affect the eyes--this is why it takes time for children to learn to do all kinds of things: sitting up, standing, walking, hopping, passing an object from one hand to another.
Yeah, but wouldn't the babies vision be fine like they can see like a normal person with poor vision at like three months. Don't blind babies learn how to walk and sit and standing at the same time as non blind babies, saying that blind babies can have a delay in walking and crawling.
Focussing the eyes is part of that (though that in itself is not what your article means about development in the brain), but it is one of the reasons babies don't focus well and often look 'cross-eyed'.
The article suggest that babies can focus their eyes when their newborn. Although the focusing would be poor, developement of both eyes like you say is different from being able to see decently. This article says after a month the baby has really good vision and focus, as babies don't become cross eyed much after two months.
If you want me to carry on further about the visual system, I'm happy to, but I don't want to bore you to tears.
I don't get bored so you can continue.

[HawkeyeMD]

Okay, well, you asked for it. :rolleyes:

I don't know if English is your first language; from your writing it doesn't quite look like it...? The article you are linking to is designed to be read by parents and is trying to explain in a simple way what their child is and is not likely to be able to see. I'm going to try and explain a little more fully, but I'm also assuming that you're not used to all the medical mumbo-jumbo so I'll try and tone that down. I mean no harm. *g*

Here is the thing. There are a lot of aspects of 'seeing' that we do not normally, in day-to-day life, think about consciously. In fact, we probably never notice them unless they go wrong. But in babies, all these things are still developing.

1. The eye itself. Light comes in through the iris, passes through the lens, and then hits the retina (the back of the eye). All these things are present in babies, but there are little cells called rods and cones on the retina that allow us to see black-and-white and color. (The congenital lack of them is what causes color blindness.) That is what your article is talking about when they start mentioning the fovea--it is the part of the retina with the most sensitivity and the most of these cells.

We do know that newborns do not have fully-developed rods and cones. So we do in fact know that they don't 'see' the same way we do. However, it's hard to give an eye test to a baby--they do not respond well to 'read the fourth line down on the chart, please'. So we see what creates interest--we show them new objects, or different objects, and see where their eyes go. So no, we don't think babies are blind. But we also know that they don't see a 'difference' at times when you or I would. They do, as your article says, see more detail than was once thought.

2. The extra-ocular muscles. (These are different from the 'ciliary muscles' your article is talking about; those are the ones that automatically focus the lens and they are immature at birth too. We know that because babies don't 'accomodate' as well as older kids--that means their pupils do not constrict quite the way older people's do when they try and see something close up.) The muscles that actually move your eye up, down, left and right are controlled by cranial nerves. Like all nerves, they are not completely mature in babies. So babies don't control their eyes all that well, just like they don't control their arms and legs yet even though they can still wave them around. It is very normal for babies' eyes to 'wander' in the first few weeks and we are always reassuring parents that it doesn't mean their kid is cross-eyed for life. (We also watch carefully to make sure it doesn't persist beyond, as you mention, a couple of months.)

3. The brain. No matter how well your eye works, you still can't see without your brain. The input from your eye travels down your optic nerve, and to horribly oversimplify, from there it goes to the back of your brain (the occipital region) where the images are translated.

If you have a stroke in the occipital region, you can be completely 'blind' even though your eye works fine.

The paths the nerves take in getting to this region are a little convoluted (to say the least). First, the optic nerves meet up and cross over, kinda just behind your nose. That's called the optic chiasm. Then the two bundles of nerves split up further as they travel through the brain, some going a little higher and some a little lower (so there are now FOUR sets of input), all along your brain, before they get to the occiput. These are called the optic radiations.

They too are not fully developed in infants. Again, even though the eye works perfectly, the brain has to learn to interpret the image. Remember, the baby has been underwater in the dark for nine months. *g* The part of the brain that is most responsible for adjusting this perception is the superior colliculus (I did warn you about all the jargon) and we know from lots of different experiments that if you don't have visual input in the first months of life, this area does not develop normally. (We don't do the experiments on actual kids, obviously, but they have studied people who were born with things like congenital glaucoma as well as animal models.)

So. There's a whole lot of stuff that goes into 'seeing' that has to develop before an infant can see the same way a grown-up does. Obviously, there is a lot more detail that could still be added, but I hope this helps you understand why someone might generalize something like "babies don't see well".

In answer to your other question, there is no particular reason that being blind would lead to delay of other milestones like walking and sitting up, assuming that was the only problem. The thing to remember is that all these things happen at roughly the same time in everyone because that is when the brain is developed enough to handle them. A baby's muscles are not too undeveloped to sit up, it is their brain that can't do it yet. They don't know how to balance yet, they don't understand how to control their arms to reach out and keep themselves upright. It's totally normal. Around six months, the brain has learned to process all that input, and the kid starts sitting up. (And is of course instantly declared a genius by the parents. :D )

It's not that infants have 'poor vision'. They have perfectly normal vision--for babies.

Any of that make any sense?

[Normal Dude]

That was a great post, Hawkeye. :)

[HawkeyeMD]

That was a great post, Hawkeye. :)

:o Thanks.

[Hawk one]

If I remember correctly, there was a time when newborn babies were indeed assumed to be blind. But that was apparently put an end to in the 1950s, when they figured out how to test this properly once and for all.

Just as an apropos, that is.

[EatatJoes]

That was a great post, Hawkeye. :)

Ditto! Feel free to educate us anytime :)

[becomingagodo]

We do know that newborns do not have fully-developed rods and cones. So we do in fact know that they don't 'see' the same way we do. However, it's hard to give an eye test to a baby--they do not respond well to 'read the fourth line down on the chart, please'. So we see what creates interest--we show them new objects, or different objects, and see where their eyes go. So no, we don't think babies are blind. But we also know that they don't see a 'difference' at times when you or I would. They do, as your article says, see more detail than was once thought.
Seriously I didn't think babies where blind. However in programs they say that the babies have poor vision, however the babies has 20/120 vision. They can tell the difference between black and white and could see letters or numbers if big enough. Having poor colour perception or light sensitivity is not have poor vision. They can focus on short objects and far objects normally.
It's not that infants have 'poor vision'. They have perfectly normal vision--for babies.
I really don't see how babies vision is bad compared to a adult. Well, after two months the baby would have control enough so it vision does not go cross eyed.
Again, even though the eye works perfectly, the brain has to learn to interpret the image.
Learn to interpret the image. But, then wouldn't this have little to do with seeing and vision and more to do with reacting and understanding at some level. You said you can't really test babies because they don't react like a grown up to visual stimulus. Wouldn't reacting to visual stimulus be more frontal cortex and possibly temporal lobe. I read their is similar activation or brain activity in babies and adults, however certain parts are unmature.

On a side note, I can only find one study that uses brain images on awake
babies and they give this explanation
Studies examining the perceptual development of young infants have been dominated by behavioral reports using preferential looking and habituation/dishabituation methods. The results of these studies suggest that infants in the first few months of life display considerable perceptual competence (1–3). However, the specific brain mechanisms involved are poorly understood, because brain-imaging methods such as functional MRI (fMRI) (4, 5) or positron emission tomography in awake infants are quite difficult.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=196871
Is the main theory of infant developement based on psychology.

They too are not fully developed in infants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Bradford
Don't all four of your optic nerves develope so you can see depth perception. People with their corpus callosum can function normally and yet they don't have the abillity to see what the other brain sees. Doesn't it take about four month for the baby to fully develope depth perception, depth perception would appear at five months.

Any of that make any sense?
You don't have to explain everything, I know how the occiptal lobe works in a adult and I know how most of the brain functions. I am smarter then I sound. I really don't trust psychology and reading that you can't take brain scan like a mRI on a baby is making me more skeptica of the field of infant psychology.

On another side note, doesn't the baby see faint light in the womb.

[HawkeyeMD]

Seriously I didn't think babies where blind. However in programs they say that the babies have poor vision, however the babies has 20/120 vision. They can tell the difference between black and white and could see letters or numbers if big enough. Having poor colour perception or light sensitivity is not have poor vision. They can focus on short objects and far objects normally.

They cannot, as compared to an adult. They can focus on them to a certain extent, for the reasons I already explained. I would also question your use of the word 'normal'. I keep saying, the way they see is normal for a baby. If you were still seeing that way at the age of 30, that would not be normal. But it's also not normal for a baby to see like an adult.

I really don't see how babies vision is bad compared to a adult. Well, after two months the baby would have control enough so it vision does not go cross eyed.

Yes, that is what I am trying to explain to you. Their vision is not yet fully developed. That is why it is different. Not abnormal--different from adults.

Learn to interpret the image. But, then wouldn't this have little to do with seeing and vision and more to do with reacting and understanding at some level.

No. It does not. You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. Yes, of course they also need to learn and consciously understand things too. But when I spoke of interpreting the image, what I am talking about is completely unconscious. The infant's brain is simply not yet sophisticated enough--not developed enough--to interpret the image fully. The signals just aren't able to be sent until the neurons that deliver them are matured.

You said you can't really test babies because they don't react like a grown up to visual stimulus. Wouldn't reacting to visual stimulus be more frontal cortex and possibly temporal lobe. I read their is similar activation or brain activity in babies and adults, however certain parts are unmature.

It absolutely is not in the frontal or temporal lobes, and I refer you to any standard neurology text. Similar activation, yes. The point is that this activation becomes more and more specified and directed as the brain matures, and that is how the brain 'learns' to see.

I am not saying that babies see badly. They see like babies. That is different from how adults see. And the reason we can't test them like adults is not so much that their brains aren't reacting the same way, it's because they can't yet follow directions.

Don't all four of your optic nerves develope so you can see depth perception. People with their corpus callosum can function normally and yet they don't have the abillity to see what the other brain sees. Doesn't it take about four month for the baby to fully develope, depth perception would appear at five months.

You don't have four optic nerves. You have two. (The nerve bundles divide after the chiasm and become four radiations.)

The corpus collosum has to do with communication from opposite sides of the brain and being able to 'cross-talk', as it were--it is not involved in sight directly. If you want to discuss VS Ramachandran's work, which is what I suspect you are referencing, I will just say that people with agenesis of the corpus collosum will seem quite normal, as will most people who have had it divided (usually because of intractable seizures). The 'inability to see what the other brain sees' is not something that has any impact on normal life. You have to control the experiment in unbelievable detail in order to see the difference. But if you read more about that work, you will find that that sort of thing is exactly what happens as the brain matures and learns to interpret specific information in certain places.

And yes. Depth perception is one of those things the superior colliculus has to learn. That is, again, why babies do not see the same way adults do, and yes, depth perception takes a few months. I am still not using the word "learn" in the conscious sense, you understand.

You don't have to explain everything, I know how the occiptal lobe works in a adult and I know how must of the brain functions. I am smarter then I sound. I really don't trust psychology and reading that you can't take brain scan like a mRI on a baby is making me more skeptica of the field of infant psychology.

Again, as I said above, I was trying to avoid too much medical jargon because of both my sense that English was not your first language and because you were referencing a fairly basic parental information article to begin with. I apologize if you felt I was talking down to you, but this sort of thing can get pretty obscure, and I did ask if you wanted me to explain more. If you know how the occipital lobe works, then you should not be under the impression that the frontal lobe controls vision. Granted, the optic radiations do travel through the temporal lobe, but they are not interpreted there. And where you get the idea that you cannot do an MRI on a baby, I have no clue. We do them all the time, and in fact we prefer to do them instead of CT scans when possible because there is no radiation involved.

And I have no idea why you are suddenly talking about infant psychology, which I am not talking about at all. This has nothing to do with psychology--this is all basic developmental neuroanatomy. :confused:

[HawkeyeMD]

Ditto! Feel free to educate us anytime :)

I'm glad you liked it. ;) I have to lecture tomorrow on Sturge-Weber Syndrome in front of the department chief; this is boosting my confidence. :eek:

[becomingagodo]

Yes, that is what I am trying to explain to you. Their vision is not yet fully developed. That is why it is different. Not abnormal--different from adults.
Okay, however how can you tell the difference between if it has normal vision or the fact that it can't handle it vision? You said earlier that a baby can sit up, however it can't do it because it has poor balance.
But when I spoke of interpreting the image, what I am talking about is completely unconscious. The infant's brain is simply not yet sophisticated enough--not developed enough--to interpret the image fully. The signals just aren't able to be sent until the neurons that deliver them are matured.
Your last sentance really confused me. If the signal aren't able to be sent then wouldn't the baby end up blind or heavily visually impaired. I heard if a part of your brain does not function fully when your young the brain cells are used for something else. If babies can't see like adults then why doesn't the visual systems get impaired?
Babies with cataracts end up permently blind if it doesn't get removed early on.
If you know how the occipital lobe works, then you should not be under the impression that the frontal lobe controls vision. Granted, the optic radiations do travel through the temporal lobe, but they are not interpreted there.
I wouldn't use the word control as such. However, I heard that your frontal lobe have control of your occipital lobe to a certain extent. Doesn't attention and memory play a huge part in vision and vision play a huge part on memory. I also heard that the frontal lobe supresses hallucination.
And where you get the idea that you cannot do an MRI on a baby, I have no clue. We do them all the time, and in fact we prefer to do them instead of CT scans when possible because there is no radiation involved.
Doesn't the baby have to be sedated or sleeping to get a decent MRI. I really don't see how you can stop the baby from moving.

[Mercutio]

Excellent stuff, Hawkeye! (I have some grad training in visual perception, so I know which things you are simplifying, and how much, and I am very very impressed.)

One side note of possible interest-- one way of testing infant visual acuity is to take advantage of a process called "habituation". In habituation, we basically become accustomed to a repeated stimulus, so that whereas it used to elicit a startle response, it no longer does (like getting used to the train that goes past your house in the night; it used to wake you up, but no longer does).

In infants, the rate that they suck on a pacifier changes as a function of startle and habituation. They will suck more rapidly in the presence of a novel stimulus, and then slow their rate if the same stimulus is repeated. This allows us to test the limits of what an infant perceives as "different". (Once again, I am following Hawkeye's example--this "perception" is purely automatic, and does not imply anything about understanding. It could just as easily be phrased in terms of the limitations of a reflexive response.) For auditory stimuli, for instance, we might play a recording of "ba...ba...ba...ba...ba..." until the infant habituates, then make the slight change to "pa...pa...pa..." and see what happens. If the baby cannot perceive a difference, there will be no change in the rate of pacifier-sucking. If the baby can tell the difference, he or she will "startle" and increase the rate of response.

Visually, we test acuity using various stimuli. We know that colors are not well discriminated because we can habituate to one color and change to another with little or no "startle". We can use black and white grids or bars to check visual acuity of the same sort that adults check using the lettered eyechart. When my kids were young (I don't know if it is still the case), companies were taking advantage of this information to make baby mobiles to hang in cribs, with high-contrast black and white grids, circles, and faces (babies appear predisposed to react to face shapes).

The cool thing (for me) is, while you (Hawkeye) are coming at this from a neuroanatomy perspective, the tests I am speaking of are all behavioral, thus from a psychology perspective, but they dovetail nicely with the evidence you present.

[bpesta22]

Yes, don't discredit the role experimental psych's played in figuring out infant perception! They do more than say: this is the area of the brain that lights up when a person does x.

[bjornart]

Is it my google-fu and comprehension that is flawed, or would I actually be right in calling 20/120 vision blurry?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Good job Hawkeye.

I did have one question. Did you mean to say what you seem to imply here:

Again, even though the eye works perfectly, the brain has to learn to interpret the image. Remember, the baby has been underwater in the dark for nine months. *g* The part of the brain that is most responsible for adjusting this perception is the superior colliculus

that the superior colliculus is the most important input for visual perceptual development? I think I would have to disagree with that. Did you perhaps mean lateral geniculate or calcarine cortex?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is it my google-fu and comprehension that is flawed, or would I actually be right in calling 20/120 vision blurry?

No, you are correct, that would be blurry (depending on how close the object was). The fundamental mistake is in calling a baby's vision 20/120. I think Hawkeye has done a great job in explaining why that is not the proper way to think of this. 20/120 vision refers to a particular form (defect ?) of distance vision. The way a baby sees is very different from the way an adult sees.

[HawkeyeMD]

Okay, however how can you tell the difference between if it has normal vision or the fact that it can't handle it vision? You said earlier that a baby can sit up, however it can't do it because it has poor balance.

*sigh* Okay, one more time: It's not that the baby's balance is abnormal or 'poor'. It's that it's normal for a baby. Babies' brains are not yet able to receive and interpret all the various types of input that go into "sitting up". You presumably can, but do you ever think about it? Of course not--not unless something is wrong. You don't have to think about which way you're leaning or making sure your shoulders are more or less upright or what your butt is telling you about how hard your chair is. When you reach for something you automatically adjust so you don't fall out of your seat.

Babies can't yet do any of that. The 'body-sense' called proprioception is not mature. They tend to act very surprised when they 'discover' their own hands. It takes a while--several months, in fact--for them to reliably be able to do things with their hands.

If a similar thing happened in an adult, it would be pathological. For an infant, this is all just normal development.

Part of the problem here seems to be language, but part of it is also that you seem to have done enough reading to pick up some terms, but not enough to really understand what it is we do know about the brain.

If you know a baby, or have one, try this. Let the baby lie on its back. Put your index fingers into the baby's hands--it will grip your fingers. (This is a reflex; all normal babies have it and they lose it after a few months--right around the time they learn to grasp things purposefully. This is not coincidence.) Then pull up. A normal baby will be drawn very easily into a sitting position with no more support than that--even a newborn. The muscle tone is there. But they can't stay that way on their own, because of all the things I'm talking about.

What you really have to try and understand is that although a baby's brain does not function the way an adult's does, THAT IS NOT ABNORMAL. The brain continues to develop after birth. I don't know how else to get this across.

Your last sentance really confused me. If the signal aren't able to be sent then wouldn't the baby end up blind or heavily visually impaired. I heard if a part of your brain does not function fully when your young the brain cells are used for something else. If babies can't see like adults then why doesn't the visual systems get impaired?
Babies with cataracts end up permently blind if it doesn't get removed early on.

Actually, they don't, necessarily. Any light at all will help, and most people who are 'blind' are not that blind. But their visual capacities are very much diminished. However, if you really are interested in this kind of thing, read Lurie or Oliver Sacks. There are some absolutely fascinating case studies out there about people who have become 're-sighted' after many years.

The thing you still seem to be misunderstanding is that all this development is NORMAL, and you seem to be taking the idea that 'babies don't see well' as being pejorative. It isn't. You are also saying things like, 'well, if babies can't focus at birth it's better in two months, so how is that bad?' It ISN'T. But the way a two-month-old sees is different from the way a newborn sees. All that two months of input has already changed the basic wiring. It's set up that way. To a certain extent you are correct when you say if a part of the brain doesn't get input, it doesn't develop--that is exactly what I'm telling you. As the brain gets input, it alters itself. Myelination occurs, neurons travel to different parts of the cortex, connections are made that weren't there before.

I was trying to keep it relatively simple, but it isn't really. :cool:

I wouldn't use the word control as such. However, I heard that your frontal lobe have control of your occipital lobe to a certain extent. Doesn't attention and memory play a huge part in vision and vision play a huge part on memory. I also heard that the frontal lobe supresses hallucination.

I don't know what you heard. I am not trying to be rude, but given what you've linked to so far, I just don't know how much of this you really understand and how much of it is just concepts you're latching onto without really knowing what they imply.

All the parts of the brain, at some level, are interconnected. "Attention" and "memory" are very complicated things and frankly aren't all that well understood, but at the basic level I was trying to keep to, no, they are not all that important. Whenever we say 'this part of the brain does this' or 'that part of the brain is responsible for that', we are generalizing to a certain extent. But it seemed to me that you were asking for a general explanation.

Doesn't the baby have to be sedated or sleeping to get a decent MRI. I really don't see how you can stop the baby from moving.

1. The article you linked to was referencing fMRI, not MRI. There is a big difference. You should look it up. No one is really sure about fMRI data yet, but it's interesting.

2. There is such a thing as conscious sedation, contradictory as that sounds, and there are such things as restraints. I don't know how any given researchers did their scans. But you could find out.

3. Do a search for some MRI images (not fMRI) of infant brains, and read about what the sites say about how they're read. MRI images of newborn brains are actually reversed in shading from adult ones, because of the changes that take place in the brain during development. Their white matter is not where it will eventually be. Check it out.

[HawkeyeMD]

Good job Hawkeye.

I did have one question. Did you mean to say what you seem to imply here:



that the superior colliculus is the most important input for visual perceptual development? I think I would have to disagree with that. Did you perhaps mean lateral geniculate or calcarine cortex?

No, I didn't mean to imply that it was the most important thing. Sorry. The superior colliculus, to my understanding, is what receives the input from the retina and also from area 17; it then gets routed out again all over the place. The thinking, as I was taught, is that it is responsible for retinoptic mapping and probably has a lot to do with the development of depth perception and certain reflexes. I was just trying to overview the pathway.

There was a lot of overgeneralization going on, though...:D

[bjornart]

No, you are correct, that would be blurry (depending on how close the object was). The fundamental mistake is in calling a baby's vision 20/120. I think Hawkeye has done a great job in explaining why that is not the proper way to think of this. 20/120 vision refers to a particular form (defect ?) of distance vision. The way a baby sees is very different from the way an adult sees.

Sure. I was just looking for confirmation before quoting this:I have been told that the baby has really poor vision, like the baby is looking through thick glass. However this is saying that the baby has 20/120 vision, which is not bad. The point is that baby can actually see decently, I thought a baby couldn't see your facial features, however this is saying they can.
and then saying that 20/120 _is_ bad.

[HawkeyeMD]

Excellent stuff, Hawkeye! (I have some grad training in visual perception, so I know which things you are simplifying, and how much, and I am very very impressed.)

The cool thing (for me) is, while you (Hawkeye) are coming at this from a neuroanatomy perspective, the tests I am speaking of are all behavioral, thus from a psychology perspective, but they dovetail nicely with the evidence you present.

Thank you! And to bpesta22 as well--let me be clear, all this stuff fascinates me as well, and I agree completely--these kinds of investigations are going to to totally mesh at some point down the road. I just had to decide which direction I was going to take to come at it. It was actually a kind of hard decision between the neuro side and the psychiatry/psychology side (I'm in my fourth year, about to submit applications for residency--HELP!!!).

However, we all come from the same place originally and I think we're all coming back together. Freud was a neurologist, right? :cool:

[Ichneumonwasp]

No, I didn't mean to imply that it was the most important thing. Sorry. The superior colliculus, to my understanding, is what receives the input from the retina and also from area 17; it then gets routed out again all over the place. The thinking, as I was taught, is that it is responsible for retinoptic mapping and probably has a lot to do with the development of depth perception and certain reflexes. I was just trying to overview the pathway.

There was a lot of overgeneralization going on, though...:D

In humans most of the retinotopic mapping for visual perception arises from interactions between the calcarine cortex and the lateral geniculate.

Many areas receive retinal and calcarine input including the cerebellum. In humans the superior colliculus is more involved in eye movement coordination (especially in the vertical plane) and eye-neck coordination. It does contain retinotopic maps, though, that is correct.

In other animals the superior colliculus plays a larger role in vision proper.

The rest of what you wrote was right on. Excellent job.

[HawkeyeMD]

In humans most of the retinotopic mapping for visual perception arises from interactions between the calcarine cortex and the lateral geniculate.

Many areas receive retinal and calcarine input including the cerebellum. In humans the superior colliculus is more involved in eye movement coordination (especially in the vertical plane) and eye-neck coordination. It does contain retinotopic maps, though, that is correct.

In other animals the superior colliculus plays a larger role in vision proper.

The rest of what you wrote was right on. Excellent job.

Very good--I stand corrected. Either my memory is faulty, or my profs were generalizing as well. :D

I appreciate the input. Will review the system again.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thank you! And to bpesta22 as well--let me be clear, all this stuff fascinates me as well, and I agree completely--these kinds of investigations are going to to totally mesh at some point down the road. I just had to decide which direction I was going to take to come at it. It was actually a kind of hard decision between the neuro side and the psychiatry/psychology side (I'm in my fourth year, about to submit applications for residency--HELP!!!).

However, we all come from the same place originally and I think we're all coming back together. Freud was a neurologist, right? :cool:

Good luck. I assume from your interest that you are going the neuro route? There are some great programs out there.

[HawkeyeMD]

Good luck. I assume from your interest that you are going the neuro route? There are some great programs out there.

I think I am, yeah--planning on pediatric neurology.

I need to find a program in NYC--older student, we live here, my husband works here, etc. Nerve-wracking...

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think I am, yeah--planning on pediatric neurology.

I need to find a program in NYC--older student, we live here, my husband works here, etc. Nerve-wracking...

You got Columbia right there. I was in a similar situation but with Houston instead of New York.

I hope you love it. Personally, I couldn't deal with sick kids, so I went the adult route. Some of the smartest people I have ever met were pedi neuro types. It's a great profession.

Now you just have to make it through 2 or 3 years of pediatrics first.

[Loss Leader]

As a parent, I can say what I observed in my own son:

It was not that he had bad or poor vision as a newborn, it was that the things he saw were meaningless to him. He did not know that the information his eyes were giving him had anything to do with 3D objects in real space. The world was one huge Picasso painting of meaningless shapes with no relation to him or each other.

On top of that, he had such poor control over his body including the muscles in his eyes that he could not purposefully look at anything. He just looked at whatever happened to be infront of him. Sometimes he went crosseyed, his muscles were so weak.

I would say that it took him at least three months to figure out that things exist and to try to interact with them based just on seeing them.

The only exception was the human face. He would stare intently at my wife or myself. This, I am told, is preprogrammed. In fact, I read one study that said that young infants are as good at recognizing an unretouched picture of a parent's face as one that has been cut up into several squares and jumbled up. So, it's sort of an agregate familiarity with small paterns than really seeing a "face" as one thing.

It was all quite interesting to watch.

[dogguy]

Interesting thread, and the info provided by HawkeyeMD has helped me to understand an experience of a couple of years ago.

My wife and I provide foster care to drug/alcohol affected newborns that are taken into government care. We had a little boy who was a couple of months premature and whose mother used street drugs, mainly crystal meth, during pregnancy. It became apparent after a couple of months that his vision was not developing normally. He would stare off into space when feeding, etc. rather than at our faces, and he appeared to have no startle reflex in response to sudden movements. He would also startle easily if he was picked up or touched without warning - we found it necessary to start talking to him as soon as we entered his room so that he would know we were there.

The (very simplified) conclusion of the pediatric opthalmologist was that the development of his visual processes was merely delayed due to his premature birth and his exposure to drugs. The opinion was that he would likely develop normal vision but at a later age than most infants. This fortunately proved to be the case. The detail provided above by HawkeyeMD certainly provides a lot of background info that we didn't have at the time. Much appreciated.

[HawkeyeMD]

You got Columbia right there. I was in a similar situation but with Houston instead of New York.

I hope you love it. Personally, I couldn't deal with sick kids, so I went the adult route. Some of the smartest people I have ever met were pedi neuro types. It's a great profession.

Now you just have to make it through 2 or 3 years of pediatrics first.

Yes, well, from your lips...I hear the nice folks at Columbia are kinda picky. :cool: I'm doing a rotation at Cornell right now--it's been great.

I like the kids. The one nice thing is that they do sometimes get better. :) Also, I'm really interested in the developmental aspects, so I'm looking at things like the autism spectrum and developmenta learning issues.

Hey, at least I get to avoid the year in medicine.

[fls]

Hey, at least I get to avoid the year in medicine.

Hey! :(

Linda

[becomingagodo]

I think I understand now. Thanks HawkeyedMD

I'm really interested in the developmental aspects, so I'm looking at things like the autism spectrum and developmenta learning issues.
Wouldn't that be really depressing.

[HawkeyeMD]

Hey! :(

Linda

:boxedin:

:dig: :dig: :dig:

[HawkeyeMD]

As a parent, I can say what I observed in my own son:
<snip>
The only exception was the human face. He would stare intently at my wife or myself. This, I am told, is preprogrammed.

It was all quite interesting to watch.

It sure is, isn't it?

Babies never stop trying to figure it all out. That's what's so cool about them. We should all be so inventive and persistent when we can't do something right away. :)

The (very simplified) conclusion of the pediatric opthalmologist was that the development of his visual processes was merely delayed due to his premature birth and his exposure to drugs. The opinion was that he would likely develop normal vision but at a later age than most infants. This fortunately proved to be the case.

Wow. That must have been very difficult. I'm so glad to hear your foster son did well--so many of those kids don't, unfortunately.

Prematurity sets all this stuff back even farther, definitely. I don't know how much research is done with premies, but the really early ones react to everything so much differently from the full-termers.

Glad I could clear a few things up, however belatedly. ;)

[Mercutio]

Wouldn't that be really depressing.

Not necessarily. One learns to readjust one's parameters. It has been a long, long time, but I used to work with a self-injurious girl, and a "good day" early on might be one in which she only hits and bites herself 10 times a minute... it can be much more than that. "Progress" is measured over the long term, and any given day, any given week might have so little change that you can't see it until you put it on the graph.

But you are making a big difference, in the lives of the kids and in the lives of the parents, and the staff, and anyone else in contact. It can be a high burn-out job, but it can also be tremendously rewarding. You are giving freedom to people.

[Ichneumonwasp]

To echo some of the above, I think it is important to keep two things in mind when discussing medicine. Medicine concerns understanding disease and limiting suffering from disease. Trying to understand autism would be a life very well lived as far as I'm concerned. It might just unlock answers to many of our questions about self-identification, social interaction, morality, and "consciousness" itself.

Limiting suffering speaks for itself.

Anyone who thinks that medicine is about saving lives has never thought much about the human condition.

Anyone with a book, a little knowledge, and access to the right antibiotics can treat an ear infection. It takes skill, patience, and dedication to treat human beings with socially stigmatizing diseases with respect.

[Damien Evans]

To echo some of the above, I think it is important to keep two things in mind when discussing medicine. Medicine concerns understanding disease and limiting suffering from disease. Trying to understand autism would be a life very well lived as far as I'm concerned. It might just unlock answers to many of our questions about self-identification, social interaction, morality, and "consciousness" itself.

Limiting suffering speaks for itself.

Anyone who thinks that medicine is about saving lives has never thought much about the human condition.

Anyone with a book, a little knowledge, and access to the right antibiotics can treat an ear infection. It takes skill, patience, and dedication to treat human beings with socially stigmatizing diseases with respect.

It's not easy though. I've got a form of Autism (Aspergers Syndrome), and despite living with it for 19 years I can't understand it.

[HawkeyeMD]

It's not easy though. I've got a form of Autism (Aspergers Syndrome), and despite living with it for 19 years I can't understand it.

Asperger's syndrome is part of my interest, obviously. Actually, one of my good friends on this forum has Asperger's.

I'd be very interested in speaking with you, if you should be at all open to the idea. I know you're saying you don't understand it, but you certainly know more than I do.

One of my recent patients was only just diagnosed (at age 13) and I've been trying to see that both she and her foster mother have enough information to keep them busy. ;) The more information I have, the better.

[Damien Evans]

Asperger's syndrome is part of my interest, obviously. Actually, one of my good friends on this forum has Asperger's.

I'd be very interested in speaking with you, if you should be at all open to the idea. I know you're saying you don't understand it, but you certainly know more than I do.

One of my recent patients was only just diagnosed (at age 13) and I've been trying to see that both she and her foster mother have enough information to keep them busy. ;) The more information I have, the better.

Yeah, sure.

I live in Australia though, so it might be a bit tricky