Concussion and Vision: Yes, we can help a lot.
We change lives through innovative vision care

Simple, noninvasive vision tests can help identify visual damage caused by a concussion. In our office, one test we use is the Developmental Eye Movement (DEM) test, a well-established assessment of eye movement control, visual tracking, and concentration skills.
The DEM test is straightforward: patients read a series of numbers as quickly and accurately as possible. Originally developed from the work of Drs. Pierce and King, and later expanded by Dr. Devick, this test has been used for decades to evaluate visual efficiency and attention.
With the growing awareness of concussions related to sports injuries, accidents, and military service, the DEM test has become an important tool in concussion screening and vision-related brain injury assessment. Changes in eye movements, reading speed, or accuracy can signal visual system disruption following a concussion, even when standard eye exams appear normal.
Our concussion-related vision testing helps identify hidden visual problems so appropriate care and recovery strategies can begin as early as possible.

The test became so widely accepted that the Mayo Clinic established a partnership with Dr. Stephen Devick, who refined and popularized the King-Devick Sideline Test for concussion screening.​

Yet, as important as that test is, it is not the main test we use in the office. We use three:
1. A thorough case history of TBI events.
2. Observation of pupillary responses.
​3. Vision field testing

Not only could we help athletic teams administer the test as a sideline indicator of concussion,  vastly more importantly we provide non-invasive treatment for the vision consequences of head trauma as well as whiplash. See Light Therapy. You don't have to have a concussion to need treatment.

​Among many others we have treated a Vietnam Vet with a head injury who was blind with reduced side vision (see Blake's Vision Therapy Story in Vision Therapy, Success Stories), a 78-year-old stroke victim who lost half his vision field, and a 9-year-old who fell on a concrete floor. A neurologist stated we saved the life of a patient when we detected a pituitary tumor with our vision field test. It should not be confused with an automated instrument using flashing lights. We have an Occulus version of it but use it for other reasons like glaucoma detection.

​Recently, a patient's vision field revealed potential damage near the optic tracks, indicating pituitary involvement, possibly a tumor. It would take weeks to go to the PCP to get a referral for an MRI and cost over 2 G. We provided light therapy for 10 visits at $500  and improved the vision fields. That proved the pituitary was not involved, which the time-consuming and expensive MRI would also prove. Thus, time and large expense would have reached the same conclusion that our less expensive treatment did. 

At the same time, we accomplished more than the MRI by also enhancing her vision, which the MRI would not do. Please, this is not a criticism of an MRI. It just shows sometimes simpler is better.