Talk:Irlen syndrome

Garbage Article
This article is almost entirely about the people researching this syndrome, with very little of it actually covering the syndrome itself. It's extremely difficult to read, as there are entire paragraphs dedicated to outlining the researcher's credentials, the institutions they worked for, etc, etc, etc.

It needs a complete rewrite. LiamSP (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with this. It looks like an advertisement. The strings of letters after the Australian researchers' names are impressively long - suspiciously long, in fact - and the references both lead to the website of "The Australasian Association of Irlen Consultants, Inc.". This organization was founded, and is run, by the first-named researcher, and offers diagnosis and services to "sufferers" of (and moreso, perhaps, to the ambitious parents of) this suspicious condition. "Irlen Syndrome" does sound like a much more respectable excuse for not doing well at school than "being a bit thick" does. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. Weasel words everywhere and it feels like an attempt at persuading the reader rather than an encyclopedia entry. There are whole paragraphs discussing organisations that deal with eye-strain in general, not relating to this syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.91.251 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Irlen syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819174813/http://www.gcu.ac.uk/eyeclinic/services/specialisedclinics/ to http://www.gcu.ac.uk/eyeclinic/services/specialisedclinics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A hole nearly as big as the article
So what are the symptoms of this disorder?


 * visual distortions some individuals reported when reading from white paper

That's all that I could find.

The article consists essentially exclusively of metadata -- who, when, where, but not what; treatment, controversy -- but the core description of the condition (or proposed condition) is missing.

178.39.220.198 (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Symptoms of Irlen Syndrome

Some links to images showing the effects of irlen syndrome:

https://www.google.com/search?q=gif+of+irlen+syndrome+effects&client=firefox-b-ab&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=LMqRYdXfsJ3Z6M%252CNmqLSOxNAlhSNM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT9oKrwIHwv-7sA-ft5yZ-sLp-Xtw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8vrr3ppHsAhVW7HMBHaPPCF4Q9QF6BAgOEAY&biw=1366&bih=659#imgrc=LMqRYdXfsJ3Z6M

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hale.ndo.co.uk%2Fimages%2Ftextpage_grey.gif&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hale.ndo.co.uk%2Fscotopic%2F&tbnid=pYMbKk56Byv2-M&vet=12ahUKEwjR2dGgp5HsAhXj0XMBHa_TABAQMygAegUIARCjAQ..i&docid=Pdej1WFpbc2TpM&w=400&h=400&q=gif%20of%20irlen%20syndrome%20effects&client=firefox-b-ab&ved=2ahUKEwjR2dGgp5HsAhXj0XMBHa_TABAQMygAegUIARCjAQ

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fneuronresearch.net%2Fvision%2Fclinical%2FIrlentestswirl.gif&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fneuronresearch.net%2Fvision%2Fclinical%2Firlensyndrome.htm&tbnid=-HyvaCkPRRI6CM&vet=12ahUKEwjR2dGgp5HsAhXj0XMBHa_TABAQMygBegUIARClAQ..i&docid=_17N8UsLN-5PSM&w=800&h=199&q=gif%20of%20irlen%20syndrome%20effects&client=firefox-b-ab&ved=2ahUKEwjR2dGgp5HsAhXj0XMBHa_TABAQMygBegUIARClAQ

List of symptoms from the irlen site Light Sensitivity:

Bothered by glare, fluorescent lights, bright lights, sunlight and sometimes lights at night Some individuals experience physical symptoms and feel tired, sleepy, dizzy, anxious, or irritable. Others experience headaches, mood changes, restlessness or have difficulty staying focused, especially with bright or fluorescent lights. Reading Problems:

Poor comprehension Misreads words Problems tracking from line to line Reads in dim light Skips words or lines Reads slowly or hesitantly Takes breaks Loses place Avoids reading Discomfort:

Strain and fatigue Tired or sleepy Headaches or nausea Fidgety or restless Eyes that hurt or become watery There are a variety of symptoms that can be caused by sensitivity to light including eye strain, fatigue, sleepiness, nausea, dizziness, anxiety, irritability, and discomfort. Lights may also be a trigger for headaches and migraines.

Attention and Concentration Problems:

Problems with concentration when reading and doing academic tasks Often people can appear to have other conditions, such as attention deficit disorder, and are given medication unnecessarily.

Writing Problems:

Trouble copying Unequal spacing Unequal letter size Writing up or downhill Inconsistent spelling Other Characteristics:

Strain or fatigue from computer use Difficulty reading music Sloppy, careless math errors Misaligned numbers in columns Ineffective use of study time Lack of motivation Grades do not reflect the amount of effort

Depth Perception:

Clumsiness Difficulty catching balls Difficulty judging distances Additional caution necessary while driving Distortions:

Words on the page lack clarity or stability; i.e., may appear to be blurry, moving, or disappear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.104.251 (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Irlen
Has been completely debunked. Placebo effect and self fulfilling prophecy. Shame on Wikipedia for allowing this. 70.48.141.235 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * More recent systematic reviews of research than what is quoted in this article shows placebo effect and no particular evidence of effectiveness of treatments https://doi.org/10.1590/0004-282X20190014
 * This wiki article reads more like a persuasive piece to convince readers of the irlen method.
 * Other research debunks the core method for how irlen syndrome is diagnosed and the efficacy of coloured overlays
 * https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0314 86.133.190.94 (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this article has been nobbled. Will address. Bon courage (talk) 07:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I was officially diagnosed with Irlen Syndrome back in around 1997/1998. The diagnosis came after I noticed that I could see significantly better, and thus read better, when surrounded by blue light. I mentioned this to my science teacher, and she researched and recommended a place for me to get tested. My brother also got tested at the same time, and the verdict was that I very clearly had it, while my brother did not.
 * I also found out that I had a cousin that I didn't know about: The optometrist commented that my ideal colour was quite rare, yet he had recently diagnosed a lady with the same last name and a very similar colour.
 * So TL;DR: I got the diagnosis after observing the symptoms, not the other way around.
 * My point is that it is definitely real, and the coloured lenses do help. I also use a variety of plug-ins and have set the theme appropriately on my computers and phones.
 * However. It doesn't surprise me that the whole thing has not stood up to scrutiny. Their website, for example, casts such a wide net that it will easily capture a large percentage of people who have other problems but not Irlen Syndrome. So studies that try to reproduce the claims based on that information are going to struggle to be testing the right people before they've even started. And that's before we even get into the behaviour of the symptoms vs testing methods.
 * I'm not sure how I can contribute. I have the syndrome, and have my coping mechanisms. But I don't feel like an authority on the topic. I'm happy to answer questions and banter if it is helpful. JungleRunner (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. Bon courage (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I see what you mean.
 * If there's one take-away I'd like to make clear: Please don't write off the Irlen method as invalid, or "debunked". It does work, but they've used such a wide brush that I can't imagine that it will ever stand up to scrutiny until they get more focussed in their discussion, and diagnosing of it.
 * Meanwhile, those of us who have it, can't rely on Wikipedia when people want to read more, because it's essentially a turf war. JungleRunner (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @70.48.141.235 I was told today someone was diagnosed in the NHS last year. If its completely debunked then surely Drs won't use the terms? 2A0A:EF40:1024:4901:C157:A265:A0B4:CC26 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)