Tianjiao Zhang1, Pooja Godara2, Ernesto R Blanco2, Russell L Griffin3, Xiaolin Wang2, Christine A Curcio2, Yuhua Zhang4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. Electronic address: zhanghua@uab.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess between- and within-individual variability of macular cone topography in the eyes of young adults. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Cone photoreceptors in 40 eyes of 20 subjects aged 19-29 years with normal maculae were imaged using a research adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Refractive errors ranged from -3.0 diopters (D) to 0.63 D and differed by <0.50 D in fellow eyes. Cone density was assessed on a 2-dimensional sampling grid over the central 2.4 mm × 2.4 mm. Between-individual variability was evaluated by coefficient of variation (COV). Within-individual variability was quantified by maximum difference and root mean square (RMS). Cones were cumulated over increasing eccentricity. RESULTS: Peak densities of foveal cones are 168 162 ± 23 529 cones/mm(2) (mean ± SD) (COV = 0.14). The number of cones within the cone-dominated foveola (0.8-0.9 mm diameter) is 38 311 ± 2319 (COV = 0.06). The RMS cone density difference between fellow eyes is 6.78%, and the maximum difference is 23.6%. Mixed-model statistical analysis found no difference in the association between eccentricity and cone density in the superior/nasal (P = .8503), superior/temporal (P = .1551), inferior/nasal (P = .8609), and inferior/temporal (P = .6662) quadrants of fellow eyes. CONCLUSIONS: New instrumentation imaged the smallest foveal cones, thus allowing accurate assignment of foveal centers and assessment of variability in macular cone density in a large sample of eyes. Though cone densities vary significantly in the fovea, the total numbers of foveolar cones are very similar both between and within subjects. Thus, the total number of foveolar cones may be an important measure of cone degeneration and loss.
PURPOSE: To assess between- and within-individual variability of macular cone topography in the eyes of young adults. DESIGN: Observational case series. METHODS: Cone photoreceptors in 40 eyes of 20 subjects aged 19-29 years with normal maculae were imaged using a research adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope. Refractive errors ranged from -3.0 diopters (D) to 0.63 D and differed by <0.50 D in fellow eyes. Cone density was assessed on a 2-dimensional sampling grid over the central 2.4 mm × 2.4 mm. Between-individual variability was evaluated by coefficient of variation (COV). Within-individual variability was quantified by maximum difference and root mean square (RMS). Cones were cumulated over increasing eccentricity. RESULTS: Peak densities of foveal cones are 168 162 ± 23 529 cones/mm(2) (mean ± SD) (COV = 0.14). The number of cones within the cone-dominated foveola (0.8-0.9 mm diameter) is 38 311 ± 2319 (COV = 0.06). The RMS cone density difference between fellow eyes is 6.78%, and the maximum difference is 23.6%. Mixed-model statistical analysis found no difference in the association between eccentricity and cone density in the superior/nasal (P = .8503), superior/temporal (P = .1551), inferior/nasal (P = .8609), and inferior/temporal (P = .6662) quadrants of fellow eyes. CONCLUSIONS: New instrumentation imaged the smallest foveal cones, thus allowing accurate assignment of foveal centers and assessment of variability in macular cone density in a large sample of eyes. Though cone densities vary significantly in the fovea, the total numbers of foveolar cones are very similar both between and within subjects. Thus, the total number of foveolar cones may be an important measure of cone degeneration and loss.
Authors: Stephen A Burns; Remy Tumbar; Ann E Elsner; Daniel Ferguson; Daniel X Hammer Journal: J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Hongxin Song; Toco Yuen Ping Chui; Zhangyi Zhong; Ann E Elsner; Stephen A Burns Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Manickam Nick Muthiah; Carlos Gias; Fred Kuanfu Chen; Joe Zhong; Zoe McClelland; Ferenc B Sallo; Tunde Peto; Peter J Coffey; Lyndon da Cruz Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Melissa A Wilk; Brandon M Wilk; Christopher S Langlo; Robert F Cooper; Joseph Carroll Journal: Vision Res Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Boyu Gu; Xiaolin Wang; Michael D Twa; Johnny Tam; Christopher A Girkin; Yuhua Zhang Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-07-12 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Katie M Litts; Michalis Georgiou; Christopher S Langlo; Emily J Patterson; Rebecca R Mastey; Angelos Kalitzeos; Rachel E Linderman; Byron L Lam; Gerald A Fishman; Mark E Pennesi; Christine N Kay; William W Hauswirth; Michel Michaelides; Joseph Carroll Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 2.424