In <JOHNZ.95Nov20092012 at garner.cs.indiana.edu> johnz at cs.indiana.edu
(John B. Zuckerman) writes:
>>In article <48n8m3$gau at ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> rlsrls at ix.netcom.com(Robert Searfoss ) writes:
>> >In article <48dcdj$hsg at news.wco.com> Della Noche
<dnoche at mail.wco.com>
> >You want to check out everything you can rather than just
> >"pop" diagnosis....
>> Preliminary research indicates that SOME individuals presenting ADD
> behaviors have a problem that may be called "constricted visual
> performance field". This may be described as being something like
> tunnel vision.
>> More research is needed on this. However it seems that some
> individuals being diagnosed as suffering ADD may have a vision field
> problem that can be easily shown. If it is only one in a
> hundred, it is worth taking five minutes with all of them to find out
> for that one.
>>I think it is highly unlikely that any significant number of children
>diagnosed with ADHD owe their symptoms to this eye disorder.
..Yes, a good point, however if it can be shown that even "a few" do,
then, for those, this could be valuable...particularly when this possible
"cause" is quick, simple, and inexpensive to check.
>>In the first place, one would not expect to see developmentally
>inappropriate signs of hyperactivity in these children, evidence for
>which often goes back to _infancy_ in children diagnosed with ADHD.
..So many are being diagnosed as ADHD ADD that I mean to suggest that
some may simply have a fairly easily detected vision problem that relates.
>>Sure, it is unfortunate for the few individuals who do have this
>problem (or a problem with gluten intolerance, other food allergies,
>hypothyroidism, autism, etc.) to be misdiagnosed as ADHD.
..Yes. What to do about it? Do the screening? Give the medicine?
>>But all these other causes combined can not explain the ADHD
>phenomenon in the _vast majory_ of those who present the symptoms.
>>Finally, if the prevalence of the disorder you're desribing is
>anywhere near 1:100, I think it would have been recognized long ago.
..Yes. Maybe it is 1:1,000 or 1:10,000. I think we generally agree
here. I am suggesting that this at least be considered for all 10,000.
There are a lot of people out there who are suffering with this
overall diagnosis. If there are only a few who can be simply shown to
have constricted vision fields that are related to their problem, it
seems worth it to consider. There is no clear research to back this
up. That's why I think it is needed.
>>- John Z.