treating facial recognition, expression recognition - new tr

Post Reply New Topic

Prosopagnosia and facial expression recognition problems – new treatment

We have developed a treatment for facial recognition / expression recognition as a side effect of dorsal stream interventions. These involve separating the LMS pathways (colour pathways) using specialised lighting systems and converting that (using some complex mathematics) into wearable lenses. The effect is immediate and we would like it available for everyone at low / no cost.
In other words the difficulties experienced in recognising people, looking at faces and understanding expression are now treatable.

Visual processing problems are common, are causative to many other difficulties experienced by those on the spectrum and can usually be treated. However, unless professionals and people on the spectrum want to the option of management, the treatment will be limited a few coming to specialists practices.

To find out more you can access my practice website - google "[NOT ABLE TO POST ADDRESS YET" (you should be able to find site, can't post address yet), there is a video that I have made in association with Coventry university (available on their website “ [NOT ABLE TO POST ADDRESS YET](also very common in ASD).

I will be giving presentation at [NOT ABLE TO POST ADDRESS AND TIMES YET] This will be the first time these have been seen in the US. If any local autism group wishes a presentation I would be happy to help (I don’t charge a fee for charities)

[edited for content by sinsboldly, moderator]

I assume this is the link: http://www.jordaneyes.com

I watched the MyFamily video...very interesting...

I wonder if it would help topographic agnosia as well, as my visual processing problems make it difficult to pay attention to my surroundings, and my visual memory is terrible. It's too bad you guys are in Scotland (I am in NY), or else I would check you out. I wear glasses, so I visit the optometrist once a year anyway.

This sounds too good to be true...

Which it probably is...

Yeah, but if insurance would pay for it as part of a regular eye exam, it would be interesting to check out. There are some people who have "seen" (bad pun) improvements with Irlen lenses, and it looks like this thing may be kind of similar.

Prosopogosia has nothing to do with visual input, only with the area of the brain used to decipher faces. So this probably isn't going to work. I'd be willing to try though...anything to be able to recognize other people.

Incorrect assumption that the visual system is just the eye, the visual system includes how we process visual information.

The fusiform gyrus is considered to be the part of the brain that deals with facial recognition (and is part of the expression recognition area - which includes amygdyla) and it also coordinates elements of colour fusion.

Up to now - developmental prospagnosia - almost 100% symptom cessation / major improvement. And we don't charge (as we have the NHS) for assessment.

Topographical agnosia has also responded well but small numbers of patients up to now, so wouldn't make any claims as stats wouldn't be conclusive

We do not use Irlen lenses or assessment methods.

We use state of the art scientific methodology (part funded by UK government), instrumentation which has won a number of awards for research and technology, and lenses which had to be specially designed because there were no optometric lenses worldwide that could come near the specifications necessary. To do this we worked with the world leader in lens dyes and one of the world leaders in plastics / lenses to be able to specify filters. There is a big difference.

We work to CIE standards (internationally recognized standards), and everything is to optometric measurable levels.

Hope this clarifies

PS a normal optometric assessment does not address issues - we take around 2hrs for a basic optometric / processing assessment

Bede,

Do you have scientific studies in peer reviewed journals to back this up? Just the description makes me doubt the veracity of the report because, as has been noted by other posters, the supposed science used is, uh, not scientific.

That will assuage my doubts and answer some questions as well.

Thank you, Rjaye.

The assessment science is strong (we were funded by UK government directly due to science) apart from descriptions of what is seen by patients. Sadly this cannot be strong as it is by its nature anecdotal. However EEGs are supportive, but MRIs aren't sensitive enough as yet. So we have to rely on reporting. But every clinician uses reports - we cannot have proof in a purely scientific way as to whether the patient is telling the truth, and occaisionally some reports must be suspect. In this case I think that it is highly unlikely. So, if a large number of patients report a change, then it is likely to be true. But this is not infallible.
But as the effect is seen during the testing (and the testing techniques are demonstrated on a university sponsored DVD), the patient self prescribes, I think your worries are unfounded. We have almost 100% success and we see around 2 people a day with prosopagnosia + other comorbid problems. There are significant problems with ethics and complex systems with science - some areas cannot be measured although we now understand the continuum of the problem - and also related facial recognition problems.

The effects on prosopagnosia were found as secondary to our main interests - but they are compelling. Our main interests are mapping neurological systems and their synesthetic effects - which can be measured. The science of this is totally accepted, but if you want absolute proof that prosopagnosia exists, then you cannot get it, and you cannot get proof that the treatment works either.

If it exists - then the reports are acceptable, if the reports are accetable then we must accept that the condition ceases.