In the Matter of Carrot Neurotechnology, Inc., File No. 1423132 #00029

Submission Number:
00029
Commenter:
Gianluca Campana
State:
Outside the United States
Initiative Name:
In the Matter of Carrot Neurotechnology, Inc., File No. 1423132
I simply find unbeliavable that FTC stated that "Ultimeyes' promoters did not have the scientific evidence to support their claims that the app could improve users' vision". There is a huge scientific peer-reviewed literature on the effects of specific visual trainings such as that used by Ultimeyes showing considerable improvements of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Improvements in visual abilities through visual training (named perceptual learning) have been proved to exist since the seventies of last century. Searching for "visual perceptual learning" on a scientific database such as Pubmed returns 8207 papers. In the last 10 years or so, basic research on perceptual learning has started to be exploited for clinical applications. For example, if we search "visual perceptual learning aging" on Pubmed, we get 251 different papers; if we search "visual perceptual learning amblyopia" we get 71 papers, and if we search for "visual perceptual learning myopia" we get 14 papers". Nearly all papers I read find that visual trainings of various type, including the one proposed by Ultimeyes, are able to improve visual functions (including visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and decreasing crowding), both in healthy participants and in participants with visual deficits. I think there is enough evidence proving that these trainings are truly able to improve users' vision. I find the FTC action completely unjustified. I attach my last scientific contribution to this field of research: an editorial of a special issue (published on Frontiers of Psychology) on the effects of visual trainings on visual deficits.