PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter M Allen

Publications and source records attributed to Peter M Allen.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Complexity: the co-evolution of epistemology, axiology and ontology.

If epistemology is about what we know and how we know what we know (what is inside) and ontology is about what there is to know (what is outside) then the most fundamental challenge that complexity makes is that these can no longer be considered as separable. Traditional science was based on the idea that there was an objective reality outside, and that we could study it and do experiments on it that allowed us to build, cumulatively, an increasingly accurate picture of that reality. Whilst for simple physical problems, and for planetary motion, this was a reasonable working hypothesis, for biological and social systems this has always been a problem. Experiments are not repeatable or transferable, and situations are historically evolved involving local, co-evolving contexts, and therefore can potentially all be unique and lacking in any generic behaviours or laws. Complexity science brings us face to face with this elusive reality, and tells us that we must accept uncertainty, and admit that our cognition, our descriptions and our models are necessarily incomplete and temporary props to our current functioning. They help us make some sense of the past and the present, and are all we have to help us in taking steps into the future. Examples of these ideas will be given for ecological, social and economic systems, showing that models, despite their necessary incompleteness, can still be useful in clarifying and living with some of the real uncertainties we have, and in this way can help us explore possible futures. However, complexity also tells us that we need not limit our explorations to those suggested by our models, since they are necessarily incomplete, and that we should also indulge in "creative actions" in order to find out more about what might happen, and in this way both increase our possible choices of action, and also improve the scope of our models.

Biological Evolution↗

Screening for Meares-Irlen sensitivity in adults: can assessment methods predict changes in reading speed?

Two methods of assessing candidates for coloured overlays were compared with the aim of determining which method had the most practical utility. A total of 58 adults were assessed as potential candidates for coloured overlays, using two methods; a questionnaire, which identified self-reported previous symptoms, and a measure of perceptual distortions immediately prior to testing. Participants were classified as normal, Meares-Irlen sensitive, and borderline sensitive. Reading speed was measured with and without coloured overlays, using the Wilkins Rate of Reading Test and the change in speed was calculated. Participants classified as normal did not show any significant benefit from reading with an overlay. In contrast, a significant reading advantage was found for the borderline and Meares-Irlen participants. Current symptom rating was found to be a significant predictor of the change in reading speed, however the previous symptom rating was not found to be a reliable predictor. These data indicate that the assessment of perceptual distortions immediately prior to measuring colour preference and reading speed is the most meaningful method of assessing pattern glare and determining the utility of coloured overlays.

Adolescent↗

Accommodation functions: co-dependency and relationship to refractive error.

We assessed the extent to which different accommodative functions are correlated and whether accommodative functions predict the refractive error or the progression of myopia over a 12 month period in 64 young adults (30 myopes and 34 non-myopes). The functions were: amplitude of accommodation; monocular and binocular accommodative facility (6 m and 40 cm); monocular and binocular accommodative response to target distance; AC/A and CA/C ratios, tonic accommodation (dark focus and pinhole), accommodative hysteresis, and nearwork-induced transient myopia. Within groups of related accommodative functions (such as facility measures or open-loop measures) measurements on individuals were generally significantly correlated, however correlations between functions from different groups were generally not significant. Although accommodative amplitude and pinhole (open loop) accommodation were significantly different in myopes than in non-myopes, these functions were unrelated to myopia progression. Facility of accommodation and accommodative lag was independent predictors of myopia progression.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

Repeatability and validity of the PowerRefractor and the Nidek AR600-A in an adult population with healthy eyes.

We assessed the repeatability and validity of the PowerRefractor and the Nidek AR-600A autorefractor. This is the first independent study conducted on adults to evaluate the performance of these instruments in a laboratory setting. Fifty subjects (23 males and 27 females) aged 16 to 61 years (mean, 37 +/- 12) participated in the study. The validity of the PowerRefractor and the Nidek autorefractor readings were determined by comparing them to subjective refraction. Measurements of refractive error were obtained from the two instruments on two separate occasions to assess their repeatability. The measured refractive error was converted into a dioptric power matrix for data analysis. No significant difference was found between the measurements obtained with the two instruments and the subjective refraction. The estimate of refractive error given by the two instruments was also found to be repeatable. In addition to measuring the refractive error, the PowerRefractor also offers the facility to measure eye position, pupil size, and dynamics of accommodation. We suggest some improvements to the PowerRefractor measurement technique to standardize its clinical use and to improve accuracy.

Adolescent↗