When something is said to have a scientific basis it is generally understood to be something that has been found, through controlled experiments, scientific studies, or statistical analysis , to have proven efficacy.
It is of course open to debate what would in fact constitute sufficient scientific basis. What are the criteria for such a label? It is also important to realize that all scientific study has to be seen through the professional filters of the one conducting the study.
With regards to studies about Vision training it is important to be clear about exactly what is Vision Training. The American Optometry Association define it this way:
"Vision therapy (also called vision training, orthoptic's, eye training, and eye exercises) is a clinical approach for correcting and ameliorating the effects of eye movement disorders, non-strabismic binocular dysfunctions, focusing disorders, strabismus, ambliopia, nystagamus, and certain visual perceptual (information processing) disorders. The practice of vision therapy entails a variety of non-surgical therapeutic procedures designed to modify different aspects of visual function. Its purpose is to cure or ameliorate a diagnosed neuromuscular, nero-physiological, or nero-sensory visual dysfunction."
This is very complicated
language saying that you can train your eyesight and Vision training is the
filed that work in this area.
Ophthalmologists representing the medical field do not think there is sufficient scientific evidence to validate Vision therapy. Medical doctors practice what they call evidence based medicine. In other words they want extensive experimental evidence before a drug or a procedure can be validated. In the medical field new drugs undergo very rigorous double blind studies to investigate all possible side effects. This is of course necessary to do when we are talking about drugs that can potentially be harmful, even deadly. Comparing vision training research to drug studies is like comparing apples and bananas. The same controversy exists with the efficacy of dietary supplements. Many doctors believe that this is nonsense, there is no scientific basis for this. So when an ophthalmologist say that there is no scientific basis for Vision training he is perhaps comparing the methodology used in drug research with the methodology used to study eye-exercises. Said simply, do you believe that physical exercise is good for your health?
Optometrists in general practice are also skeptical about Vision therapy. Their training and professional purpose evolve around optics and correcting vision defects, in contrast Vision training is about curing vision defects. There is a huge difference.
Behavioral optometrists maintain that many of the common vision problems can be cured or greatly improved. The American Optometrist Association affirmed the efficacy of Vision training in a special report published in 1986. This report is supported by more than 230 studies. Many of which involve 100 or more cases, as well as longitude studies lasting several years.
Vision raining is not brain surgery. The training activities does not involve any drugs nor invasive surgery. The exercises are safe and has no side effects, apart from possible sore muscles if you overdo the exercises. The same will happen in the gym if you go too long.
The outcome of Vision training is full restoration of natural vision, no if's and no buts.
For most people it will be enough to know that numerous studies have found the procedure effective in more than 75% of the cases.
