As explained earlier, each run in a subject consisted of a 60-second recording period containing 10 cycles (6 sec/cycle), of 18 frames each. Each cycle consisted of a 3-second (nine frames) baseline recording in which no stimulus was presented followed by another 3 seconds (nine frames) in which either a vertical bar stimulus (bar cycle) or no stimulus was presented (blank cycle). The pixel intensities in each recorded frame were analyzed to determine the reflectance ratio (
r) of two equal-sized rectangular regions of the retina; one (
S) corresponding to the projection of the vertical bar stimulus and the other (
N) corresponding to a nonstimulated area oriented perpendicular to the first region
(Fig. 3) . The relative reflectance or reflectance ratio
r of each image at time
t was calculated by dividing the average pixel intensity of
S by the average pixel intensity of
N, for each frame, for time
t from the start of the cycle. Both the
S and
N regions of interest spared the optic disc and the parafoveal region
(Fig. 3) .
r(
t) was normalized with respect to the frame immediately preceding the stimulus onset by dividing each
r j(
t) by
r(
3000 ms). For subsequent analysis, windows for
r,
\({\={r}}\) , were defined as the average
rof three consecutive frames each, one window before and three after stimulus onset,
\({\={r}}_{0^{blank}},\ {\={r}}_{1^{\mathrm{blank}}},\ {\={r}}_{2^{\mathrm{blank}}};\ {\={r}}_{3^{\mathrm{blank}}}\) and
\({\={r}}_{0^{\mathrm{bar}}},\ {\={r}}_{1^{\mathrm{bar}}},\ {\={r}}_{2^{\mathrm{bar}}},\ {\={r}}_{3^{\mathrm{bar}}}\) , for frames 6, 7, 8; 10, 11, 12; 13, 14, 15; and 16, 17, 18 respectively, for both blank and bar stimulus conditions. Corresponding windows were also computed for
x- and y-position. A mixed-effect model for repeat measures was used to determine the effect of the presence or absence of a vertical bar visual stimulus (bar versus blank cycles) on the reflectance ratio
\({\={r}}\) .
15 The advantage of the mixed model over less robust methods, such as multiple linear regression is that it allows an analysis of all sources of variation separately and independently. This is in contrast to the multiple linear regression, in which all variation is lumped into one error term and which can only account for multiple sources of variation, with a considerable loss of generality. The sources of variation in this study were stimulus, time (window), cycle, cycles in runs, cycles in runs across subjects, and interactions between these sources. This overall mixed model was designed to determine the existence of a change in
\({\={r}}\) over four time windows (from prestimulus window 0 to poststimulus window 3) in all experiments and in all subjects in both bar and blank cycles. The mixed-model analysis was performed using the PROC MIXED feature (SAS ver. 9.1; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Fixed effects were stimulus state (vertical bar or blank), window, and stimulus–window interaction. The random effects were runs within subject, cycle within run within subject, and subject. Within each stimulus cycle (bar or blank), a statistical test for linear mean contrast was performed to determine whether mean changes in retinal reflectance, as measured by the mean ratio, decreases linearly across the four sequential time windows (see preceding paragraph). The model described is designed to measure the existence of a change in
\({\={r}}\) in all subjects in all cycles, but it cannot determine the relative size of these changes in individual subjects. Therefore, a second, “individual” mixed model was designed to test for the presence of a change in individual subjects. The presence of a linear trend was defined as the individual mixed model showing a change in reflectance from before to after the stimulus
\({\={r}}_{0}\) to
\({\={r}}_{3}\) . The effect of changes in eye fixation position on the changes in
r was tested by Pearson’s product moment calculation. The correlation and its 95% confidence interval (CI) of the reflectance ratio (
r) windows with the corresponding small
x- and
y-position shifts of the fundus that are inevitable during image recording were calculated, to evaluate whether small changes in eye position could account for any of the significant changes in the reflectance ratio (
r) that were induced by the bar stimulus.