Avenell L Chew1,2, Danuta M Sampson1,2, Irwin Kashani2,3, Fred K Chen1,2,4. 1. Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 2. Ocular Tissue Engineering Laboratory, Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 3. Save Sight Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared cone density measurements derived from the center of gaze-directed single images with reconstructed wide-field montages using the rtx1 adaptive optics (AO) retinal camera. METHODS: A total of 29 eyes from 29 healthy subjects were imaged with the rtx1 camera. Of 20 overlapping AO images acquired, 12 (at 3.2°, 5°, and 7°) were used for calculating gaze-directed cone densities. Wide-field AO montages were reconstructed and cone densities were measured at the corresponding 12 loci as determined by field projection relative to the foveal center aligned to the foveal dip on optical coherence tomography. Limits of agreement in cone density measurement between single AO images and wide-field AO montages were calculated. RESULTS: Cone density measurements failed in 1 or more gaze directions or retinal loci in up to 58% and 33% of the subjects using single AO images or wide-field AO montage, respectively. Although there were no significant overall differences between cone densities derived from single AO images and wide-field AO montages at any of the 12 gazes and locations (P = 0.01-0.65), the limits of agreement between the two methods ranged from as narrow as -2200 to +2600, to as wide as -4200 to +3800 cones/mm2. CONCLUSIONS: Cone density measurement using the rtx1 AO camera is feasible using both methods. Local variation in image quality and altered visibility of cones after generating montages may contribute to the discrepancies. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Cone densities from single AO images are not interchangeable with wide-field montage derived-measurements.
PURPOSE: We compared cone density measurements derived from the center of gaze-directed single images with reconstructed wide-field montages using the rtx1 adaptive optics (AO) retinal camera. METHODS: A total of 29 eyes from 29 healthy subjects were imaged with the rtx1 camera. Of 20 overlapping AO images acquired, 12 (at 3.2°, 5°, and 7°) were used for calculating gaze-directed cone densities. Wide-field AO montages were reconstructed and cone densities were measured at the corresponding 12 loci as determined by field projection relative to the foveal center aligned to the foveal dip on optical coherence tomography. Limits of agreement in cone density measurement between single AO images and wide-field AO montages were calculated. RESULTS: Cone density measurements failed in 1 or more gaze directions or retinal loci in up to 58% and 33% of the subjects using single AO images or wide-field AO montage, respectively. Although there were no significant overall differences between cone densities derived from single AO images and wide-field AO montages at any of the 12 gazes and locations (P = 0.01-0.65), the limits of agreement between the two methods ranged from as narrow as -2200 to +2600, to as wide as -4200 to +3800 cones/mm2. CONCLUSIONS: Cone density measurement using the rtx1 AO camera is feasible using both methods. Local variation in image quality and altered visibility of cones after generating montages may contribute to the discrepancies. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Cone densities from single AO images are not interchangeable with wide-field montage derived-measurements.
Authors: Shu Feng; Michael J Gale; Jonathan D Fay; Ambar Faridi; Hope E Titus; Anupam K Garg; Keith V Michaels; Laura R Erker; Dawn Peters; Travis B Smith; Mark E Pennesi Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Nathan D Shemonski; Fredrick A South; Yuan-Zhi Liu; Steven G Adie; P Scott Carney; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Nat Photonics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 38.771
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