» Articles » PMID: 24009995

Influence of Sampling Window Size and Orientation on Parafoveal Cone Packing Density

Overview
Specialty Radiology
Date 2013 Sep 7
PMID 24009995
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We assessed the agreement between sampling windows of different size and orientation on packing density estimates in images of the parafoveal cone mosaic acquired using a flood-illumination adaptive optics retinal camera. Horizontal and vertical oriented sampling windows of different size (320x160 µm, 160x80 µm and 80x40 µm) were selected in two retinal locations along the horizontal meridian in one eye of ten subjects. At each location, cone density tended to decline with decreasing sampling area. Although the differences in cone density estimates were not statistically significant, Bland-Altman plots showed that the agreement between cone density estimated within the different sampling window conditions was moderate. The percentage of the preferred packing arrangements of cones by Voronoi tiles was slightly affected by window size and orientation. The results illustrated the high importance of specifying the size and orientation of the sampling window used to derive cone metric estimates to facilitate comparison of different studies.

Citing Articles

The effect of sampling window size on topographical maps of foveal cone density.

Warr E, Grieshop J, Cooper R, Carroll J Front Ophthalmol (Lausanne). 2024; 4:1348950.

PMID: 38984138 PMC: 11182112. DOI: 10.3389/fopht.2024.1348950.


Extracting spacing-derived estimates of rod density in healthy retinae.

Heitkotter H, Patterson E, Woertz E, Cava J, Gaffney M, Adhan I Biomed Opt Express. 2023; 14(1):1-17.

PMID: 36698662 PMC: 9842010. DOI: 10.1364/BOE.473101.


Intergrader agreement of foveal cone topography measured using adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy.

Wynne N, Cava J, Gaffney M, Heitkotter H, Scheidt A, Reiniger J Biomed Opt Express. 2022; 13(8):4445-4454.

PMID: 36032569 PMC: 9408252. DOI: 10.1364/BOE.460821.


Evaluation of focus and deep learning methods for automated image grading and factors influencing image quality in adaptive optics ophthalmoscopy.

Sampson D, Alonso-Caneiro D, Chew A, La J, Roshandel D, Wang Y Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):16641.

PMID: 34404857 PMC: 8371000. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96068-2.


The Reliability of Cone Density Measurements in the Presence of Rods.

Morgan J, Vergilio G, Hsu J, Dubra A, Cooper R Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2018; 7(3):21.

PMID: 29946495 PMC: 6016505. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.7.3.21.


References
1.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

2.
Godara P, Dubis A, Roorda A, Duncan J, Carroll J . Adaptive optics retinal imaging: emerging clinical applications. Optom Vis Sci. 2010; 87(12):930-41. PMC: 3017557. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181ff9a8b. View

3.
Li K, Tiruveedhula P, Roorda A . Intersubject variability of foveal cone photoreceptor density in relation to eye length. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51(12):6858-67. PMC: 3055782. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.10-5499. View

4.
da Fontoura Costa L, Rocha F, Araujo de Lima S . Characterizing polygonality in biological structures. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2006; 73(1 Pt 1):011913. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.73.011913. View

5.
Bland J, Altman D . Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999; 8(2):135-60. DOI: 10.1177/096228029900800204. View