Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Health Watchdog: 3D Viewing May Damage Eyesight In Children

Posted by timothy on from the this-time-with-feeling-but-not-depth dept.

dryriver (1010635) writes with this clipping from the BBC: A French health watchdog has recommended that children under the age of six should not be allowed access to 3D content. The Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) added that access for those up to the age of 13 should be 'moderate'. It follows research into the possible impact of 3D imaging on still-developing eyes. Few countries currently have guidelines about 3D usage. According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image. 'In children, and particularly before the age of six, the health effects of this vergence-accommodation conflict could be much more severe given the active development of the visual system at this time,' it said in a statement.

15 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. I'm not a scientist... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.

    Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

    1. Re:I'm not a scientist... by PacoSuarez · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      That's why France doesn't allow children under the age of six to open both eyes at the same time.

    2. Re:I'm not a scientist... by AaronLS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Normally, your convergence and focus operate together.

      With 3D imaging your convergence varies but focal point remains the same. No where outside of viewing a 3D image will your eyes ever experience such a scenario.

    3. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes. They should have added this: Normal 3d vision from natural surroundings has the eyes converge at the same distance that they focus. Artificial 3D technology has the eyes do something they never did before. That is focusing at a near distance while converging at a farther distance.

    4. Re:I'm not a scientist... by shadowrat · · Score: 2

      According to Anses, the process of assimilating a three-dimensional effect requires the eyes to look at images in two different places at the same time before the brain translates it as one image.

      Isn't that how normal vision works anyway?

      sure, but modern 3d tech, as good as it is, is still a bit of a kludge. the screen is still a fixed distance away from your eyes. the image doesn't move when you move your eyes. the interpupilary distance used to render the two images may not match your own. Having viewed a 3d world our whole lives we are impressed by the reproduction in an occulus rift. However we are also blissfully unaware how much work went into our brain building up a database of how to interpret what is coming in from our eyes.

      for example: When i scan about my desk, my eyes converge on various things. My brain is getting the two images, but unlike the images from a vr headset, the projection matrices are along different normals, the subject may be closer to one eye than another and that eye is at a different focal distance, all of that means something to your brain. It's not just cruft. The lack of a lot of this contributes to the disorientation most people feel when they first strap on an occulus. Your eye is being fed an image that is generated from a crude eye that is not quite doing what your eye is doing.

      that said, it's unlikely that a kid who grows up with too much vr is going to die. they just might feel a bit dizzy walking around the real world. is that horrible? or is it like how my teachers didn't like me relying on a computer to do math. maybe i'm not as good at head math, but knowing how to do it with the tool sure has been beneficial to me.

    5. Re:I'm not a scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Eyesight is probably the most important sense you have to interact with the world. It's precious and even a slight chance off affecting it is enough to not take the risk. It's not like we're depriving kids of something important anyway.

      I don't see what's wrong with the recommandation and the fact that an agency for food, environmental and occupational health and safety studies the effect of 3D viewing on people and kids. Sounds to me they are doing their job.

    6. Re:I'm not a scientist... by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The question I responded to was how is viewing a 3D image different, not an explanation of how it is harmful or any claim that it was or was not harmful. However there is flawed logic in your response.

      " and found research conducted on adults (none on children) " ...and there you go. The lack of evidence doesn't prove/disprove anything. Although it's probably more a lack of diligent reporting on the journalist's part combined with the research may be in journals that aren't freely available(and abstracts with technical wording that don't turn up in a google). It sounds like to me you've pointed out why there SHOULD be such a study.

      Additionally, studies where you hypothesize that subjects will come to significant irreparable harm are usually considered unethical. You have to instead observe those who already engage in those behaviors, and because they don't all engage in them in a consistent manner, then it's difficult to prove something. This is exactly why no one has proven cigarettes cause cancer. When a scientist talks about proving something, it's much more rigorous than what the average person thinks of. In the absence of a controlled experiment, you instead make statistical observations. Even if they found extreme statistics, such as 94% of people who smoke get cancer within a week of smoking, it still wouldn't prove anything cause you could have a correlation with some other variable out of your control. It is statistically significant however, and for these kind of things, it is the closest thing to proof you will get. That aside from rubbing cigarette tar on an animal and seeing cancer form. But that's usually not enough for people who like to argue.

  2. I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by enjar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By making them go outside and play instead of sitting in front of the TV/computer/tablet.

    1. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by Russ1642 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The real world is in 2D so it won't damage their vision.

    2. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by AaronLS · · Score: 4, Funny

      The resolution is incredible.

    3. Re:I encourage my kids to get a lot of 3D content by aaron4801 · · Score: 2

      Remember, the real world used to be in black and white, too:
      Calvin & Hobbes

  3. Re:ANSES by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

    In France, those are all things that have wine pairings.

  4. Re:ANSES by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, wine is the domain of L'agence des vins, fromages et pain baguette.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  5. Re:3d products already come with these warnings by omnichad · · Score: 2

    And Nintendo already recommended an age of 6 before using 3D mode.

  6. OMG! I LOOKED AT VIEWMASTERS AS A KID by the_skywise · · Score: 2

    I'm blind now!

    Oh wait... No I'm not...

    I had a pile of viewmaster reels and a viewer that I'd spend hours looking at when I was between 4-6 and I made my own 3D pictures and posters using red/blue markers as a pre-teen.

    I'll agree that back to back marathon viewings of 3D content probably isn't good but I think that's just basic common sense and just as bad as watching back to back marathon viewings of 2D content... which I also did as a child on Saturday Mornings... :/