Kady S Bruce1, Wolf M Harmening2, Bradley R Langston3, William S Tuten4, Austin Roorda4, Lawrence C Sincich1. 1. Department of Vision Sciences University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 3. School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States. 4. School of Optometry, Vision Science Graduate Group, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the light sensitivity of poorly reflective cones observed in retinas of normal subjects, and to establish a relationship between cone reflectivity and perceptual threshold. METHODS: Five subjects (four male, one female) with normal vision were imaged longitudinally (7-26 imaging sessions, representing 82-896 days) using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) to monitor cone reflectance. Ten cones with unusually low reflectivity, as well as 10 normally reflective cones serving as controls, were targeted for perceptual testing. Cone-sized stimuli were delivered to the targeted cones and luminance increment thresholds were quantified. Thresholds were measured three to five times per session for each cone in the 10 pairs, all located 2.2 to 3.3° from the center of gaze. RESULTS: Compared with other cones in the same retinal area, three of 10 monitored dark cones were persistently poorly reflective, while seven occasionally manifested normal reflectance. Tested psychophysically, all 10 dark cones had thresholds comparable with those from normally reflecting cones measured concurrently (P = 0.49). The variation observed in dark cone thresholds also matched the wide variation seen in a large population (n = 56 cone pairs, six subjects) of normal cones; in the latter, no correlation was found between cone reflectivity and threshold (P = 0.0502). CONCLUSIONS: Low cone reflectance cannot be used as a reliable indicator of cone sensitivity to light in normal retinas. To improve assessment of early retinal pathology, other diagnostic criteria should be employed along with imaging and cone-based microperimetry.
PURPOSE: To determine the light sensitivity of poorly reflective cones observed in retinas of normal subjects, and to establish a relationship between cone reflectivity and perceptual threshold. METHODS: Five subjects (four male, one female) with normal vision were imaged longitudinally (7-26 imaging sessions, representing 82-896 days) using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (AOSLO) to monitor cone reflectance. Ten cones with unusually low reflectivity, as well as 10 normally reflective cones serving as controls, were targeted for perceptual testing. Cone-sized stimuli were delivered to the targeted cones and luminance increment thresholds were quantified. Thresholds were measured three to five times per session for each cone in the 10 pairs, all located 2.2 to 3.3° from the center of gaze. RESULTS: Compared with other cones in the same retinal area, three of 10 monitored dark cones were persistently poorly reflective, while seven occasionally manifested normal reflectance. Tested psychophysically, all 10 dark cones had thresholds comparable with those from normally reflecting cones measured concurrently (P = 0.49). The variation observed in dark cone thresholds also matched the wide variation seen in a large population (n = 56 cone pairs, six subjects) of normal cones; in the latter, no correlation was found between cone reflectivity and threshold (P = 0.0502). CONCLUSIONS: Low cone reflectance cannot be used as a reliable indicator of cone sensitivity to light in normal retinas. To improve assessment of early retinal pathology, other diagnostic criteria should be employed along with imaging and cone-based microperimetry.
Authors: Stacey S Choi; Nathan Doble; Joseph L Hardy; Steven M Jones; John L Keltner; Scot S Olivier; John S Werner Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Adam M Dubis; Robert F Cooper; Jonathan Aboshiha; Christopher S Langlo; Venki Sundaram; Benjamin Liu; Frederick Collison; Gerald A Fishman; Anthony T Moore; Andrew R Webster; Alfredo Dubra; Joseph Carroll; Michel Michaelides Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Katherine E Talcott; Kavitha Ratnam; Sanna M Sundquist; Anna S Lucero; Brandon J Lujan; Weng Tao; Travis C Porco; Austin Roorda; Jacque L Duncan Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Joseph Carroll; Ethan A Rossi; Jason Porter; Jay Neitz; Austin Roorda; David R Williams; Maureen Neitz Journal: Vision Res Date: 2010-07-16 Impact factor: 1.886
Authors: Jacque L Duncan; Yuhua Zhang; Jarel Gandhi; Chiaki Nakanishi; Mohammad Othman; Kari E H Branham; Anand Swaroop; Austin Roorda Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Greg D Field; Jeffrey L Gauthier; Alexander Sher; Martin Greschner; Timothy A Machado; Lauren H Jepson; Jonathon Shlens; Deborah E Gunning; Keith Mathieson; Wladyslaw Dabrowski; Liam Paninski; Alan M Litke; E J Chichilnisky Journal: Nature Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Robert F Cooper; Adam M Dubis; Ashavini Pavaskar; Jungtae Rha; Alfredo Dubra; Joseph Carroll Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: David Alonso-Caneiro; Danuta M Sampson; Avenell L Chew; Michael J Collins; Fred K Chen Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Niklas Domdei; Lennart Domdei; Jenny L Reiniger; Michael Linden; Frank G Holz; Austin Roorda; Wolf M Harmening Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 3.732