The following en face images were created from the data sets: a depth-integrated en face image, including the signals from the ELM to COST layer (“full en face image”), segmented en face images of the different layers (ELM, IS/OS, COST, ROST, and RPE-BM complex), and false-color composite images of the IS/OS and COST and COST and ROST (an overview of the different types of en face images is given in
Fig. 3).
The full en face images showed a regular mosaic of reflective dots in healthy individuals (see
Fig. 3A). Analogous to the dots seen in B-scans (
Fig. 2C), the dots in “full en face” view showed slight variations in size and brightness and formed a dense pattern.
The ELM layer showed very weak and sparse signals in all volumes that did not form a distinct pattern. The segmented IS/OS and COST layers both presented with regular, bright dot patterns, although the pattern of the COST layer appeared generally finer and better demarcated than the IS/OS (compare the patterns in
Figs. 3B,
3C). Both, the IS/OS and COST patterns showed no loss of signals in healthy eyes and were mainly regular (see
Table 2). Mean IS/OS density at 2.5° superior eccentricity from the fovea (secc) was 20,733/mm
2 (SD 2450, min 16,600, max 25,100). At 6.5° secc the IS/OS density decreased to 16,036/mm
2 (SD 1860, min 13,400, max 22,000). Mean COST density was slightly lower at 2.5° secc the density was 20,366/mm
2 (SD 2440, min 16,400, max 24,900, signed-rank test
P < 0.001) and at 6.5° secc the density was 15,690/mm
2 (SD 1870, min 13,000, max 21,500,
P < 0.001).
The false-color composite images of the IS/OS and of the COST layer were used to analyze the overlap of PR signals. Qualitative assessment of these composite images revealed that IS/OSd and COSTd overlapped in many but not all dots (compare the magenta dots as a sign of signal overlap with the blue and red dots in
Fig. 3F). Regarding the analysis of rods, visualization of the segmented ROST layer was more challenging due to its proximity to the COST and RPE and only possible in 14 of 30 eyes. The ROST images revealed a branched network of small, reflective signals forming ring-like patterns (
Fig. 3D), but individual rod signals could not be clearly resolved. The false-color composite images of the COST and ROST showed that COSTd were exclusively fitting into the “gaps,” which were formed by the ring-like patterns of the ROST (seen by the red COSTd centered within the green ROST rings and barely any yellow signal overlap in the red-green composite images of
Figs. 3G,
3H). The RPE-BM complex could be visualized in all eyes and showed a denser and less branched pattern, when compared with ROST signals (compare
Figs. 3D,
3E).
Regarding artefacts from retinal vessels, larger veins and arteries caused clearly visible, river-shaped areas of signal loss throughout all outer retinal layers (see
Fig. 3), whereas small vessels formed thin lines of signal reduction that were sometimes just hinted.