Talk:Phosphene

Are migraine auras also considered phosphenes? e.g., the classic scintillating scotoma…? —mjb 16:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is "a crumpling fly-spotted flyscreen"? Not really a good metaphor since it's not universally understood. User: petruchi41 15:07 EST 16 April 2007

This is not the same as visual snow, some people may have both, but they are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.233.82 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also wanted to add that phosphenes and visual snow are not the same thing, so please do not merge the articles. --AliisaKissa (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shouldnt the danger of damage to retina etc from pressing eyeballs be pointed out? Detached retinas are a serious medical condition.

I agree, especially in regards to what I mentioned below about seeing glitter. Sometimes pressing your eyes to see stars or glitter floating around in them, can be addictive. More so I imagine, to small children. Violet yoshi (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does this also have to do with seeing what looks like different colored glitter when you rub your eyes or press on them? I guess that might be a form of what people call seeing stars. Violet yoshi (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Violet yoshi,

Personally, I don't think it is seeing stars, because 'seeing stars' requires an actual visual stimulation, for example, a camera flash.

Tip: [May cause very mild physical harm] DO NOT TRY IF YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF FAINTING

If you want to experience some serious visual fatigue (a form of seeing stars), sit down and do something that requires a lot of blowing, like blown ink art (works best if you're sitting directly on the floor, not on a chair). Do :that for five minutes or so. Then, stand up abruptly. If you've really been putting some effort into it, you'll probably have some kind of hallucination because of the extreme low blood pressure. However, normal 20% effort will just :replace your normal vision with a big blob of some sort - a 'star'. Once, I did that by accident, and not only did it give me a hallucination, it also gave me a headache for the rest of the day.

If you want to be on the safe side, just sit down for that five minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthostatic_hypotension

Rebestalic (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The example image image:Phosphene_artistic_depiction.gif seems to be completely inaccurate (based on what i've seen and the description), and is more suitable for the page on Form_constants. 68.18.66.216 (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. It looks quite like what I see when I press my eyes (except being flesh coloured instead of b/w) 155.198.65.29 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't match with what I have in mind for the phenomenon referred to but even if it did I think that illustration would be original research. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the image is fantastic. It looks exactly like what I see when I rub my eyes vigorously. Phosphenes vary in form and intensity (this definitely portrays an intense phosphene), but as far as adding value, this image is great. I see no problem with it. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

But is not even your endorsement of it original research? What published source confirms that there is any relation between the artistic image and the phenomenon described? It is not as though a reliable source included that image or an image similar to it in its treatment of this subject. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The warped checkerboard style is recognisably present in a number of illustrations in Oliver Sacks's "Migraine", though in those it modulates other imagery rather than being just a contextless pattern. K2709 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Trying to use a single image to represent phosphenes is ad accurate as trying to play a tone to simulate tinnitus.

Being a sensory phenomenon, it's extremely subjective and varied. Not to mention the different causes of phosphenes can cause different looking ones. For instance, eigengrau is very different from visual snow, which is very different from mechanically induced phospenes, which are all very different from phosphenes caused by after images. Despite the variety of names and causes, these are all types of phosphenes.

Also, perception of sensory input is not the same between two people. There will be variations down to things like certain medications or medical conditions, mental state, etc. One type of sensory input can cause a slew of different reactions.

There are many different causes and types of phosphenes and as such using just one image is not an accurate representation. It imploes phosphenes only look like this and anything else is some other phenomenon. And I think that's too ambiguous for a Wikipedia article.

You just need to look at the replies to this in order to see that even the relatively small number of people who reploed have had a wide range of experiences with phosphenes.

At the very least, the caption should have a statement with more generalized language. For example "Although varied in appearance, some users report phosphenes to look sinilar to this." Or along those lines.

Personally, I've haf HPPD (actually diagnosed by a doctor) for 20 years and my phosphenes have never looked like the picture. But I don't refute for a second that somebody has had phosphenes like that.

In the article on visual snow related to HPPD, many years ago, they had an image which was a similar, though animated sort of image. And a variety of online "simulators" that show you what visual snow looks like with eerie accuracy. I wonder, if perhaps there might be similar tools to demonstrate phosphenes more accurately. Maybe with an animate gif.

Or better yet, include several different (credible) examples of phosphenes. That way the user can know there isn't just one universal type of phosphenes that every one sees invariably whenever they see phosphenes. Which they may, if they're unfamiliarbwith phosphenes. But they also get the benefit of being able to visualize the various forms it can manifest as.

Everything from tiny dots of fast moving stars, more colorful blobs morphing and merging, random flashes of light. Whether your eyes are open or not is important but not mentioned in the article. Evwn though having your eyes closed, or being in a dark environment can make them more noticable and much stronger. Just like how tinnitus is much louder/more noticeable in quiet area. VoidHalo (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am disappointed that this site and others have taken down this image. I'm glad it's still here in the history, because I want to take it to show my doctor. This is almost exactly what I see. It's been about four times now and I don't know what's causing it. 114.43.108.243 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)SKBOX, 06/06/10Reply

I dont think this image has any relation with phosphenes. In my own experienced phosphenes I saw coloured or silver dots zooming in. (Very far from black and white squares).That being said, the picture is very good and if you stare at it, when you look away, it triggers some similar effect. Would it be out of the line to mention this in the image description?Unmismoobjetivo (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I beg to differ. It is pretty much exactly what I and my wife see when we rub our eyes for some amount of time. It's a shame the picture is not linked in any way in the article. It could be described as being one of the kinds of phosphenes that can occur. When I visited this page in the past looking for the explanation of the warped checkerboard effect, this was exactly what hinted to me that I was reading the correct article. Now I came back and was quite confused where the image went. What I am trying to say - it is quite strange to say that the image has no relation to phosphenes just because of your individual experience.Picazsoo~enwiki (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Some people report being able of changing the visual patterns more or less at will while keeping the pressure on the eyes during the entoptic phenomenon. The following text could shed some light into this possibility:

"Mathematician G. Bard Ermentrout explains that the pressure inhibits signals from the retina, thereby encouraging the brain's cortex to fill the void. The brain begins firing spontaneously and creates hallucinatory patterns."^[1]

It's evident that the initial pattern is created by one of the mechanisms listed in the article, e.g. pressure on the eyes. But then, perhaps due to the oddity and incoherence of the samples, the visual cortex is open to filling the voids with information such as the thoughts from the conscious mind. This would explain why some subjects may be able to control the content of these visions, to some extent.

Does anyone know of any research or works on this subject? It might be of interest in the study of the visual cortex.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.113.238 (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009‎ (UTC)Reply

Hi wikipedia. I have phosphenes too!

Josh M (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Josh. It's nice to know that. I'm not a doctor or medical expert, but I know there are a lot of different phosphenes you can 'see', without applying pressure to your eyelids (i.e. just closing them). For example:

- Look for the multicolored dot in the middle of your supposed vision.

- When you start seeing those funny blobs that float around, try and see what color you're seeing - it's hard! I normally see green or blue.

- Notice that the things that appear are probably flashing at a very fast rate.

Bonus: Try and mentally 'draw' something basic in your closed-eye vision, like the number '6'. You might just see it light up in a bright yellow or white color, much like sparkler tracks do when you move them around fast.

Have fun,

Rebestalic (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've been trying to nail down the coining of the word phosphene. I believe that this page cites the wrong person. I have a copy of the original report from 1838, and only M. (Monsieur) Savigny is referenced. I believe that this is Marie-Jules-César Lelorgne de Savigny who is documented as being blind (which is referenced in the original report). I think that attribution of this report to Jean Baptiste Henri Savigny is incorrect. I have not been able to confirm this suspicion yet. Please confirm and correct. This error is widely cited across the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrYoda (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply