July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
Evaluating different methods for marking cones in simulated and in vivo retinal images
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Suman Adhikari
    Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Gwen Musial
    Biomedical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
    Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Hanieh Mirhajianmoghadam
    Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Alexander W Schill
    Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
    Biomedical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Hope M Queener
    Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Joseph Carroll
    Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
  • Jason Porter
    Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
    Biomedical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Suman Adhikari, None; Gwen Musial, None; Hanieh Mirhajianmoghadam, None; Alexander Schill, None; Hope Queener, None; Joseph Carroll, None; Jason Porter, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH Grant P30 EY007551
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 4593. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Suman Adhikari, Gwen Musial, Hanieh Mirhajianmoghadam, Alexander W Schill, Hope M Queener, Joseph Carroll, Jason Porter; Evaluating different methods for marking cones in simulated and in vivo retinal images. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):4593. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : The use of different quantification methods for calculating cone packing metrics in living eyes has limited (1) understanding of the accuracy and variability of these measurements and (2) comparisons between studies. We sought to compare the performance of different cone marking methods within a given retinal area, or region of interest (ROI).

Methods : 10 ROIs (37µm × 37µm and 100µm × 100µm) of random orientation were randomly extracted from simulated cone mosaics with uniform densities varying from 10,000-200,000 cones/mm2 (10,000 cones/mm2 increments) and placed with random orientations on real cone mosaics from 5 normal subjects acquired using adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscopy at 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, and 2.4mm eccentricities. We marked all cones fully within the ROI and partially within the ROI along (1) all 4 borders, (2) top and right borders only, and (3) bottom and left borders only. A custom program (Mosaic Analytics) calculated bound and unbound densities for all ROI sizes and marking methods. ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare density values between methods.

Results : Marking all cones fully and partially contained within the ROI (Method 1) and computing unbound density yielded values that were significantly higher than simulated densities (mean difference ± SD = 11.3 ± 4.3%). Values were closest to simulated densities when performing Methods 1-3 and calculating bound density (mean % difference = 0.6 ± 0.5, 0.8 ± 0.5, 1.0 ± 0.6) or performing Methods 2-3 and calculating unbound density (mean % difference = 3.0 ± 2.2, 2.6 ± 1.8). However, mean coefficients of variation (CoV’s) in cone density calculated from simulated images using Methods 1-3 (37µm × 37µm ROI) were smaller for bound densities (0.7%, 0.8%, 0.7%) than for unbound densities (3.1%, 3.8%, 3.9%). Similarly, mean CoV’s in cone density calculated from in vivo cone images across eccentricities using Methods 1-3 were smaller for bound densities (2.4%, 3.1%, 3.2%) versus unbound densities (4.8%, 4.6%, 4.8%).

Conclusions : Computing bound cone density after marking all cones fully and partially within the ROI (Method 1) or fully within and partially along 2 adjacent borders of the ROI (Methods 2, 3) provide measurements with greatest accuracy and least variability. We suggest calculating bound density after performing Method 1 to provide maximum sampling, particularly for analyses done at peripheral eccentricities.

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×