Literature DB >> 29265471

Visual resolution and cone spacing in the nasal and inferior retina.

Kelly Woog1, Richard Legras1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the retinal eccentricity at which cones are no longer an observable substitute for ganglion cells on nasal and inferior parafoveal visual acuity.
METHOD: Visual acuities were measured on 12 healthy volunteers, under dynamic adaptive optic aberrations correction (crx1™) in white light, from 0° to 6°, every two degrees, along the nasal and inferior retinal meridians. Cone spacing was measured on images of the retina acquired using an adaptive optic flood illumination retina camera (rtx1™) at the same eccentricity, except at 0°.
RESULTS: Cone spacing increased by around 0.13 min of arc per degree of eccentricity and a difference of 7% between both meridians was observed (higher cone spacing in the inferior retinal meridian). Visual resolution was higher in the nasal retinal meridian (difference of around 28% or 0.15 logMAR at 6°). Cone spacing can predict minimum angle of resolution (MAR) at 2° in both semi retinal meridians. In the inferior retinal meridian, MAR measurements are fairly well predicted by Watson's 50% mathematical model based on the midget retinal ganglion cell density. Along the nasal retinal meridian, the measured MAR lies between Watson's 50% and 100% models.
CONCLUSIONS: At 2° of eccentricity, cone density accurately predicts visual resolution in both the nasal and inferior retina, supporting the idea that only 50% of the foveal midget retinal ganglion cells determine VA. The 50% model can also predict VA in the inferior retinal meridian at 4° and 6° of eccentricity. However, the 50% model underestimated visual acuity in the nasal retinal meridian at 4° and 6° of eccentricity consistent with the partially overlapping ON and OFF midget retinal ganglion cell receptive fields.
© 2017 The Authors Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2017 The College of Optometrists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cone spacing; midget retinal ganglion cells; parafoveal visual resolution

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29265471     DOI: 10.1111/opo.12424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt        ISSN: 0275-5408            Impact factor:   3.117


  5 in total

Review 1.  Adaptive optics imaging of the human retina.

Authors:  Stephen A Burns; Ann E Elsner; Kaitlyn A Sapoznik; Raymond L Warner; Thomas J Gast
Journal:  Prog Retin Eye Res       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 21.198

2.  Impact of Reference Center Choice on Adaptive Optics Imaging Cone Mosaic Analysis.

Authors:  Danial Roshandel; Danuta M Sampson; David A Mackey; Fred K Chen
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 4.925

3.  Virtual Deformable Image Sensors: Towards to a General Framework for Image Sensors with Flexible Grids and Forms.

Authors:  Wei Wen; Siamak Khatibi
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 3.576

4.  Which Explanatory Variables Contribute to the Classification of Good Visual Acuity over Time in Patients with Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion with Macular Edema Using Machine Learning?

Authors:  Yoshitsugu Matsui; Kazuya Imamura; Shinichiro Chujo; Yoko Mase; Hisashi Matsubara; Masahiko Sugimoto; Hiroharu Kawanaka; Mineo Kondo
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.964

5.  Retinal Differential Light Sensitivity Variation Across the Macula in Healthy Subjects: Importance of Cone Separation and Loci Eccentricity.

Authors:  Danuta M Sampson; Danial Roshandel; Avenell L Chew; Yufei Wang; Paul G Stevenson; Matthew N Cooper; Elaine Ong; Lawrence Wong; Jonathan La; David Alonso-Caneiro; Enid Chelva; Jane C Khan; David D Sampson; Fred K Chen
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.283

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.