CNET47%

I Took a Vision Test in 90 Seconds With a Robot and Saw the Future of Vision Care 22%

By Nasha Addarich Martínez46%

7/13/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 191 hits. Analysis detected 994 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,022 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.4% and a BS Rank of 22% (17,255 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.80% of the article peer group.

Getting a prescription for glasses has always been the same: You schedule an appointment with an eye doctor, sit in an exam room while someone flips the lenses and asks you which is best, and wait at least a week for your new glasses to arrive. 
Not to mention paying out of pocket if you don't have vision insurance. 
Eyebot, a health tech company, wants to make that process optional and make vision tests more accessible. 
The Boston-based startup has built a kiosk that delivers a doctor-reviewed prescription for glasses in under 90 seconds with no appointment or insurance required. 
I got to test it out, and the experience was much more seamless than I expected. 
What is Eyebot? 
Simply put, Eyebot is a kiosk that offers non-invasive vision tests on a touchscreen. 
The process starts with an intake that asks whether you currently wear glasses or have any existing vision conditions. 
Those with certain eye conditions, such as glaucoma or cataracts, are directed to seek in-person care. 
Then, you'll see letters on a screen, and you type out what letters you see, the same as when you go for an in-person exam. 
After, the bot conducts the vision scan using a contactless eye scanner that collects refraction (identifies the exact lens prescription needed to correct your vision), lensometry (if you already use glasses, it scans your glasses and measures the power of your existing eyeglasses) and visual acuity (measures how clearly you see) information. 
"The Eyebot is a vision testing solution that lets you get a vision exam in four simple steps, similar to what you would experience at an eyeglass clinic," Matthias Hofmann, CEO at Eyebot, told CNET. 
The four steps are: intake survey, visual acuity test, tele-doctor review and prescription. 
The entire process takes about 90 seconds. 
Your results are then sent to a licensed optometrist for review. 
Prescriptions are available within 24 hours after the test. 
I got mine in about 30 minutes. 
However, Eyebot isn't a replacement for your optometrist. 
It's designed to serve the millions of people who can't access one because of a lack of accessibility or affordability. 
My first impression of the Eyebot 
When I first walked up to the Eyebot kiosk, which I was invited to test at a PR office, I was a little skeptical. 
It looks like a sleek ATM crossed with a photobooth. 
While I went in with doubts, I came out pretty impressed. 
It felt like it was straight out of a futuristic movie, but beyond that, the process was straightforward and intuitive enough that even someone who isn't well-versed in technology could use the device without issue. 
I followed the instructions on the screen, and I saw the bot scanning my eyes. 
Everything was done within 2 minutes. 
About 30 minutes later, I received an email with my prescription. 
After receiving my results, I went online to The Framery at 1-800 Contacts, ordered glasses with my new prescription and received them in about five business days. 
All in all, the experience was quick and seamless. 
I compared my prescription with the one I got during my in-person vision exam last year, and they were very similar. 
My optometrist's prescription from last year showed mild nearsightedness and astigmatism in both eyes. 
Eyebot read my vision as effectively neutral -- a discrepancy worth flagging. 
Since the nearsightedness and astigmatism are minimal and the prescription the optometrist reviewed after using Eyebot included a small amount of vision correction, I don't notice any difference between my old and new glasses. 
I also didn't have my glasses with me. 
Eyebot can scan your current glasses and identify your prescription, but I couldn't test that feature. 
How much does it cost to get a vision exam with Eyebot? 
The vision test itself can cost up to $25 at most locations. 
At Walmart Vision Centers, a visit to an Eyebot kiosk includes a $25 administrative fee. 
For Sam's Club members, the service is covered under a membership ($60 or more per year) at participating clubs. 
That's a significant contrast to a traditional in-person vision exam, which typically runs between $100 to $200 without insurance. 
"Half of Americans don't even have vision insurance, so if we can get the retailers to subsidize the cost, that's even better for consumers," Hofmann says. 
Getting a prescription is half the battle, as you still need the glasses. 
Eyebot partnered with The Framery at 1-800 Contacts to create a one-stop shop experience. 
Once you create an account with The Framery using the same email you used at Eyebot, you can automatically see your prescription and order glasses on the website. 
Prescription glasses at The Framery range from $69 to $129, depending on the frame you choose. 
Where to find an Eyebot 
Eyebot kiosks are popping up at different locations, including Walmart Vision Centers and Sam's Club Optical Centers in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Virginia, with plans to expand underway. 
If you're interested in finding an Eyebot near you, you can visit the website to view current locations. 
What to know before canceling your next eye appointment 
Eyebot is worth trying, but not without a few caveats. 
I think it's best for adults who need a routine prescription update and don't have a complex vision history. 
The Eyebot can't screen for glaucoma, cataracts, macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy or other eye conditions as a comprehensive eye exam with a doctor can. 
Those conditions don't always come with obvious symptoms, and a 90-second kiosk test won't catch them, so it's best to continue visiting your eye doctor for routine exams. 
The American Optometric Association has been clear that this kind of technology isn't a substitute for your yearly eye exam, especially if you haven't had a comprehensive eye exam in more than a year or have a family history of eye disease. 
But for the average person with healthy vision who's been squinting a little more at their screens lately and can't get an eye exam appointment, or can't afford one, Eyebot can fill the gap. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.9%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 1.4%CNET: 1.7%Confirmation Bias9.9%This article: 5.2%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 1.1%CNET: 2.3%Anchoring Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 2.2%CNET: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.4%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.8%CNET: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.2%CNET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.3%CNET: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.7%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 2.6%CNET: 4.5%Framing Effect18.7%This article: 1.3%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.2%CNET: 1.3%Loss Aversion1.3%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.1%CNET: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.9%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 3.0%CNET: 3.8%Optimism Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 1.0%CNET: 3.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 5.1%CNET: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 4.0%CNET: 4.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.1%CNET: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.8%CNET: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.4%CNET: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 2.7%CNET: 4.2%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 3.3%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.9%CNET: 1.2%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.3%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.2%CNET: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.3%This article: 9.8%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 3.0%CNET: 4.7%Hasty Generalization9.8%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.3%CNET: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.5%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.7%CNET: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion2.5%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.3%CNET: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.2%CNET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.1%CNET: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.2%CNET: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.3%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 16.2%CNET: 6.3%Anecdotal2.3%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 2.1%CNET: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.2%CNET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.7%CNET: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.2%CNET: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 8.5%CNET: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 1.4%CNET: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 0.0%CNET: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Nasha Addarich Martínez: 9.3%CNET: 13.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.1%

1022 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers10%attributed speech919writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageMatthias Hofmann • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMatthias Hofmann • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAmerican Optometric Association • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matthias Hofmann

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words59% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%Matthias Hofmann: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.