My Theory - visual overload and light frequencies (long)

Chriso

Hi everyone,

I have a theory I’ve been thinking about as to why our symptoms are occurring, but not yet have a complete solution.

For background, I’ve been dealing with eye strain, headaches, feeling of unreality, eyes blurry for hours after computer use etc, for years. In fact, I never had anxiety (clinical) until I started using an iPad 2 back in the early 2010s.

Never thinking it (anxiety) was anything digital-related, I pursued avenues such as diet, caffeine reduction etc, which helped tremendously at first.

In the last few years it has returned, as has my digital/screen-related symptoms. I’ve never been one to consider that my anxiety was causing my screen symptoms, but instead the inverse. I’ve tested this (it’s never perfect of course, as there are always placebo and nocebo effects) with spending time away from screens for extended periods, and it certainly appears as there is a direct and strong correlation.

My journey to understanding started with this YouTube video. It’s called ‘Exploring the Spectrum’ by John Ott, who found that certain light frequencies has massive effects on plants and their fruiting, disease etc. He furthered the experiments to looking at animals (including humans) living under certain light frequencies, and found that different ones can produce different ailments in animals. In fact, he saw that blue light on rabbit retina cells caused ALL sorts of problems with the way they (the cells) behaved.

In fact, it’s not only the specific light frequency that may cause the ailment (e.g. blue), but get this, the ABSENCE of others. The sun’s light frequencies change throughout the day - more red in the morning and afternoon, more blue during the middle of the day etc. Conversely, a screen’s light spectrum (as well as LED lights, fluorescent lights etc) is very different. Blue light is energising and can be toxic when not paired with red light frequency, which is healing.

All of this is signalling to our body and brain. Think why all OS’s now have a version of Night Shift, because blue light stops the release of melatonin, and when we look at a normal screen at night, it signals to our brain that it’s midday and ruins our sleep. Night Shift can reduce blue light and create warmer tones.

It’s an old doco/video, but the information is invaluable for those that manage to watch it all - if you can get through the beginning (which is essential to watch), the rest is super interesting. It’s like a light bulb turning on in your head. I posted it a few years ago but no-one really took notice. And to be fair, it appeared that the only solution was not to use screens.

As an aside, and I’m not going to focus on this because it’s so divisive and I’m not sure it’s the big player here, but light frequencies are non-ionising radiation. Yet they still have a proven biological effect. Yet other EMF frequencies, along the SAME spectrum of electrofrequencies are ‘said’ not to have any biological effect because they are non-ionising…

Anyway, I digress. For years now, in search of why my headaches, anxiety, eye strain etc were getting worse, I researched more on this forum and had quite a few conversations with AI. AI isn’t perfect of course, but it’s good at inhaling a lot of information and summarising it.

2 things I realised. Light is information. And eyes are an extension of the brain, which allows us to intake light and decipher and absorb that information to give us ‘reality’.

I realised the more time I spent outside, even using the laptop or phone, the more relaxed my eyes were, once the initial light sensitivity to the sun decreased.

Through my AI chats, I started thinking that this was all an information overload disorder. I’m also a behaviourist (animal) by trade, and behavioural science is a specialty of mine. We can, over time, be desensitised to stimuli - provided that our brain realises that it’s not harmful. If we flood, even subconsciously, our brains with information it thinks is harmful, we can actually SENSITISE it to the stimuli. This might explain why there is often a trigger (COVID, driver update, new computer), that makes our brain less tolerant, and suddenly the brain is sensitised because it pairs other harmful stimuli with this stimuli.

I’ll expand on this in a moment. Back to the information overload. I have read several times of people here reporting that certain displays almost drive our eyes to want to focus more. Like we can’t actually help it, but they are drawn towards the pixels on the screen, causing eye strain.

According to AI, higher pixel density (think retina and HD screens) has more information packaged in it per pixel that is sent to our brain. Not only that, but certain technologies can pack MORE information into the already dense pixels - namely PWM, temporal dithering etc. And each new hardware and software driver update helps it to pack even more information that we aren’t consciously seeing, but our brain is. It’s almost as if the feeling of our eyes being driven to focus is by design, to get our attention. Our brains crave information.

So hence I think that we are dealing with information overload (and unnatural light spectrums). Not in a sense of doom scrolling, reading everything we can etc, but in the sense that our brain in constantly processing visual information, and each update or change is packing more information into the visual field, to which our brains respond to try and inhale that information. The screen is not just static, but instead is dynamic, and technologies such as PWM, dithering, and any other tech designed to pack more ‘information’ is causing us overload. It’s not one thing. It’s everything. It just depends on what that particular person was sensitised to, and then by the process of pairing, it may have generalised to other ‘harmful’ screen technologies.

We all have different thresholds, and different causes. This is the brain being sensitised to certain technologies or hardwares when it’s in a ‘harmed’ state (e.g. COVID, inflammation, caffeine overload etc). This could be why we all have different solutions - some people feel relief from rolling back a version of Windows (different pixel tech), others feel relief from using blue light blocking glasses (light spectrum). In the end, it’s the visual stimuli and the information it’s holding, as well as the unnatural light. As humans, we naturally are ok with analogue objects in natural light, but with the digital technologies trying to win the race to have the best and most vibrant screens, it’s hurting us. We are just the canaries in the coal mine.

I don’t expect all will agree, and I definitely don’t have a complete solution (except to avoid screens which is not an option here!) as I mentioned in the opening sentence, but it’s a theory I’ve been working on. If watching John Ott’s documentary helps even one person who might be able to connect different dots that could help all of us, then my post is worth it.

Thanks all.

Chris

K-Moss

Chriso John Ott's work is highly censored. Just about no one knows about it despite its tremendous importance. By the way, have you noticed the ultra harsh bright white street lights erected all over now? LED of course. Cold, industrial, super bright, inhumane. Who dreams up putting lighting as such in residential neighborhoods? I had one of those beasts shining into my bedroom. I expressed my disdain and they changed its orientation, but it's still such awful quality residential lighting. Really only suitable (I guess?) for things like industrial parking lots, prisons, mining operations.

Also, this fits in with some of your post: "Probably worth noting my eyes get tired a lot more on vivid and radiant color modes vs natural. idk why though"

As you say, it could be overwhelming the eyes and brain with excessive data to process. I notice some relief just turning my phone on Bedtime Mode, which puts it into a special monochrome mode.

simplex

Chriso

What I agree, is LED has 3 main spectrum peaks. Thanx G we found out deep blue <490 nm is bad. But, we still lay on 3 big nails

Donux

Chriso There are many ways to look into it, and this is a valid point of view. The question of course, can it withstand the scrutiny of user feedback, or actual studies. Also, it seams like information overload theory will be a complex one, since PWM and temporal dithering are more likely to be utilised on high pixel density screens, so these would be correlating factors. On the opposite side, without trying to dissmiss your point, but to challenge it - there is a medical condition when people do not get enough sensory stimulation. This has just as bad effects as sensory overload if not worse. Could these mean we should aim to seek right balance, rather than frame everything in dualistic extremes? It is just a question, I personally do not have answer to it. But, we should keep measuring our health parameters as much as possible in order to see how different things affect us.

AshX

K-Moss Sounds like you are trying to justify your addiction to replacing the real world with your fake plastic ultra high res artificial world.

We don’t need to attack people personally. I don’t know what your age is, but many here are in their teens, twenties, and thirties and know nothing else. Many people’s careers involve using technology (almost all, these days, to some extent). It is simply not practical for 99% of people to go tech-free and live off the grid, nor is it preferable. It’s not an addiction, it’s a tool. After all, many of us gladly use older devices that work in lieu of newer, flashier products. So what you’re saying isn’t even relevant here

Chriso We all have different thresholds, and different causes. This is the brain being sensitised to certain technologies or hardwares when it’s in a ‘harmed’ state (e.g. COVID, inflammation, caffeine overload etc). This could be why we all have different solutions - some people feel relief from rolling back a version of Windows (different pixel tech), others feel relief from using blue light blocking glasses (light spectrum). In the end, it’s the visual stimuli and the information it’s holding, as well as the unnatural light. As humans, we naturally are ok with analogue objects in natural light, but with the digital technologies trying to win the race to have the best and most vibrant screens, it’s hurting us. We are just the canaries in the coal mine.

Completely agree. I’ve often noticed that fragrances of all types - perfumes, laundry detergents, etc. - are way more aggressive and potent now than they were a few years ago. I wonder if this is just the market trying to amp thing up, or if it’s a pandemic consequence of COVID dulling people’s senses of smell.

It seems like the push is toward brighter, flashier, and more expensive. What you’ve described in your post is textbook dysautonomia. POTS, one condition, is on the rise as it is triggered by COVID. People like myself got it from other viruses before the pandemic, but this sort of dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system makes it difficult for the body to handle things like standing up or regulating blood pressure and digestion. COVID is one of the most dysregulating and destabilizing infections you can have. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Google search trends for Eyestrain have gone up significantly since the end of 2019, for a variety of reasons.

I think the solution we are all looking for at the end of the day is one centered around control of the different aspects of digital devices. No one person’s triggers and thresholds will be the same, but we need to be able to control forms of flicker, the way colors are rendered, the way graphics and animations are handled, and so on and so forth. Some of this is already addressed by certain companies. Much is not. Like the nutrition facts on the back of foods, users need to be told what’s in their devices and have the option to either not purchase them in the first place, or to disable problematic features and customize the device to their own comfort.

Companies already cater to customization in a variety of ways. The “health food” industry is massive. Apple Watch and Oura ring is a success. Why not extend that to the displays themselves? Plenty of money to be made.

K-Moss

simplex We can change the light distribution through a good pair of computer glasses. Apparently rose is a good color for screens.

simplex

K-Moss

I afraid, it is more complicated than redicing intensity of blue peak. I mean, intensity and quantity of peaks, and peaks nm zones, does matter for retina health and start some body processes

Chriso

Donux

K-Moss

To be fair, I think you're both right, just talking about different things.
Audiologists advise people who are going deaf to wear hearing aids even in environments they don't need them i.e. at home, because the lack of stimulation can hasten degeneration of the brain (if you don't use it you lose it). So there's substance to what Donux is saying.

But, I think the issue is that screen technology these days is like asking a deaf person to wear hearing aids that stream heavy metal music at high volumes, causing damage (i.e. overstimulation).

I see it like food. Yes we need food (i.e. stimulation). Ice-cream is a food. But its an unnatural junk food (well, these days it is). We like eating icecream, but if we have too much, and everyone has their own threshold, we feel sick. We don't say, 'well, icecream is food, and we need food, so it SHOULDN'T make us sick'. We've just had too much of the wrong form of it.

simplex Totally agree here. Did you know that studies that say that sunlight causes macular degeneration, actually isolate blue light and shine that on retina cells. Then they say, well sunlight has blue light, so it causes macular degeneration. It's the isolation that is the issue, in that it is unbalanced with the other frequencies. Sunlight/natural light has these frequencies in perfect combination, like a well-tuned guitar. Honestly, I implore people to watch the video in the original post. It is fascinating. Blue light appears to energise (stimulate), whereas the red spectrum appears to allow rest and healing. One frequency in isolation will cause problems if not balanced with the others.

I just think that screen tech (both the pixel tech i.e. PWM, dithering, AND the unnatural combination of light frequencies) is like changing a hearing aid to be a high powered speaker listening to heavy metal music. Or eating icrecream all day and saying we shouldn't be sick because it's still 'food'. Everyone has their own thresholds and sensitivities, which other environmental and conditioned factors have determined (genes, COVID, POTS, previous over-exposure etc). And the more that screen tech becomes more and more like artificial food, the worse it's going to be. Some people just have iron stomachs. Unfortunately for us, we have a bunch of intolerances! Like having a ham, cheese and tomato toasted sandwich. 3 of us might feel sick, but one is because they are lactose intolerant, one is gluten intolerant, and another one has issues with nightshades.

As an aside, I use a Macbook Air, M1 (2020) and based on advice here have been able to slightly improve my tolerance by downloading 'DisplayMenu', changing the resolution to a non-retina, low res one, exactly half of my native display resolution so the scaling is more uniform. Plus increasing the contrast by one click. It's not perfect, but it seems easier to use. Like my eyes aren't being 'forced' to focus.

AshX I totally agree that we can't just go tech free, and that more control over our tech settings would be a good thing - this would allow us to be able to adjust for our unique intolerances and thresholds. I just unfortunately can't see it happening yet, as it appears that every proprietary tech information is guarded like fort knox. But then again we only need just one company to lead the way!

K-Moss

Donux Pure BS a 720p smartphone screen is not giving one enough sensory stimulation. Who told you that? Complete nonsense. As I said, no one ever got eye strain from a calculator. Sounds like you are trying to justify your addiction to replacing the real world with your fake plastic ultra high res artificial world. When I was in university I was seeing ads in certain washrooms saying, "Live life online." There is a major push to get people disconnected from the real, natural world into a man-made imitation of it. That's one of the agendas we are seeing now.

As I said, even with a comfortable smartphone like the Moto G, I get increased comfort when I turn on Bedtime Mode. There is no doubt about it.

Bedtime Mode reduces sensory stimulation. That's by design.

QuitePainful

K-Moss

K-Moss That person was erroneously saying a display not offering enough stimulation would cause eye strain?

They didn't say that. They pointed out that a medical condition exists in which too little stimulation causes issues as well as a challenge to the original poster's ideas and played around with the idea of finding proper balance in the amount of stimulation possibly being a good idea. They even said they don't actually know and are essentially just wondering.

I don't see how this could be construed as misinformation nor do I understand why you would twist this kind of pondering into something else.

K-Moss no one ever got eye strain from a calculator

How do you know this?

K-Moss Ever hear of people getting eye strain from arcade games? Me neither.

Just because you personally haven't heard of this happening doesn't mean it has never happened.

You seem a bit biased in your reasoning.

Donux

K-Moss I used old crappy Xaomi phone that probably flickers quite bad. I have only noticed that recently. Also, when I use public transport and not drive my car, I am the only one who does not look at my phone 🙂 And I have been on the other side too - too little sensory stimulation. Literally living in the middle of knowhere, in a town of very few people, few cars, not much noise at all. But using paralells is a better strategy I think, for example asking questions why person A has problems and person B does not. There are a lot of complex factors at play, so uness you want to sustain your group identity of being a victim, or group identity of eye strain community, you might want to be open to unconfotable questions.

K-Moss

AshX "Many people’s careers involve using technology."

I benefit as well, but I don't go for the billion+ color ultra high res OLED displays. That person was erroneously saying a display not offering enough stimulation would cause eye strain? That's definitely not true. They are spreading misinformation.

As said, I programmed back when we had very few colors and graphics were blocky and primitive. There was no eye strain as long as the CRT had an adequately high refresh rate and the resolution was not too high.

Ever hear of people getting eye strain from arcade games? Me neither.