An evaluation of the irlen lenses as a treatment for specific reading disorders

Abstract

The paper by Cotton and Evans presents a useful review of research on the Men lens procedure. However, as the Yranchised Men lens practitioner" referred to in the paper, I am concerned that its value as an investigation of the effects of lenses is limited by a number of factors. Unfortunately, analysis of the results is restricted by the fact that it has not been possible to access the raw data.However, based on the data contained in the paper and in the thesis (Evans, 1988) from which the research component of it emanates, the following observations can be made. Conditions of Testing Development of Effect3It is important to appreciate the true nature of the study, which evaluated the immediute ef€ects of Irlen lenses. The assumption is made in the Cotton and Rquests for reprints should be sent to G. L. Robinson,

A Functional Neuroimaging Case Study of Meares–Irlen Syndrome/Visual Stress (MISViS)

“…Overall, diagnosis is similar, but key differences will be highlighted below. In Canada and the USA, the Irlen Reading Perceptual Scale (Irlen 1999) is used to evaluate subjective visual experiences through questionnaires and appraise performance on perceptual tasks, such as attention span and peripheral vision (Cotton and Evans 1990;Kruk et al 2008). In the UK the Visual Discomfort Scale (Conlon et al 1999) provides a valid and reliable measure of possible somatic, perceptual, and performance difficulties.…”

“…Other critiques include the lack of scientific and clinical literature supporting the diagnostic protocol that is currently used, and that the early studies investigating MISViS were methodologically weak (Blaskey et al 1990;Cotton and Evans 1990;Evans et al 1994;Evans and Drasdo 1991;Jeanes et al 1997;Kruk et al 2008;Stein 2003).…”

“…There is not yet consensus as to the etiology of the disorder and some professionals still question the validity of a diagnosis (Cotton and Evans 1990;Hollis and Allen 2006). However, protocols to diagnose MISViS have been developed and are dependent on: (1) specially designed scales composed of questions that evaluate subjective visual experiences and perceptual tasks; and (2) amelioration of the person's visual perceptual issues or somatic symptoms with a preferred coloured filter (Irlen 1999).…”

“…Irlen originally proposed prevalence rates of 12-14% for the general population and 46% for people with dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, and learning disability (as cited in Nandakumar and Leat 2008). Subsequent research found that the coloured overlays that were prescribed to alleviate the symptoms of MISViS did not always improve reading skills (Evans and Drasdo 1991;Robinson and Foreman 1999), and this was considered evidence against the acceptance of MISViS as a clinical condition (Cotton and Evans 1990). However, more recent research shows that although there is some correlation, MISViS is independent from all types of dyslexia including the visual processing deficit subtype (Kriss and Evans 2005;Kruk et al 2008).…”

Scotopic Sensitivity/Irlen Syndrome and the Use of Coloured Filters: A Long-Term Placebo Controlled and Masked Study of Reading Achievement and Perception of Ability

“…to 6 yr. of use (see Coleman, 1995;Irlen & Robinson, 1996;Whiting & Robinson, 1988;Whiting, Robinson, & Parrot, 1994). The five negative studies did not yield improvements on such tasks as a timed letter-recognition test (Winter, 19871, immediate improvements in reading achievement (Cotton & Evans, 1990;Menaker, Breton, Breton, Radcliffe, & Gole, 1993), or improvement in reading achievement over one school term to 18 months of use (Gole, Dibden, Pearson, Pidgeon, Hannell, Fitzgerald, Kortman, & McGhchey, 1989;Martin, MacKenzie, Lovegrove, & McNicol, 1993).…”