June 2021
Volume 62, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2021
Comparison of automated and manual operation of an ophthalmic device
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Amanda Carpenter
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Andre Bender
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Katharina G Foote
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Alejandro Millan
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Kabir Arianta
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Niranchana Manivannan
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Lukas Rothmann
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Jochen Straub
    Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Amanda Carpenter, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Andre Bender, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Katharina Foote, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Alejandro Millan, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Kabir Arianta, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Niranchana Manivannan, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Lukas Rothmann, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E); Jochen Straub, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (E)
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2021, Vol.62, 2290. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Amanda Carpenter, Andre Bender, Katharina G Foote, Alejandro Millan, Kabir Arianta, Niranchana Manivannan, Lukas Rothmann, Jochen Straub; Comparison of automated and manual operation of an ophthalmic device. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2021;62(8):2290.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Acquiring high quality ophthalmic images typically requires a trained operator in close proximity to a patient. Motorized alignment can enable remote operation, e.g. for physical distancing during a pandemic, and automated alignment can enable quality imaging when a trained operator is not readily available, e.g. in low-resource environments. We evaluated and compared manual and automated operation of an ophthalmic device on a motorized stage.

Methods : We acquired data on 5 normal subjects (10 eyes) by both manual (via a trained operator) and automated operation using a prototype with three off-axis iris cameras (one below and on each side of the device) and a 3-axis motorized stage (Fig. 1). The motorized stage allowed all data to be acquired with a plexiglass shield between the subject and operator for remote operation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Auto-alignment was achieved using custom software to align the device to the patient pupil, with real-time pupil detection via a deep-learning algorithm. Auto-capture was triggered once the pupil was detected at the target location. We evaluated alignment success rate (alignments that triggered a capture), mean ± SD time to align, and accuracy of alignment (mean ± SD distance between detected pupil center and target).

Results : Of 24 auto-alignments (1-3 per eye), 23 successfully triggered a capture; 1 failed due to a software bug. All 14 manual alignments (1-3 per eye) proceeded to capture. Time to align for auto-alignment (29 ± 15 s) was significantly faster than for manual alignment (72 ± 37 s). The accuracy of alignment was 0.94 ± 0.59 mm for auto and 0.97 ± 0.41 mm for manual operation. A two-sample t-test assuming independent alignments for auto and manual results did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in accuracy (p > 0.05).

Conclusions : This comparison of manual and auto-alignment and capture for a motorized device indicated that this auto-alignment method is 2.5x faster than motorized manual alignment, saving an average of 40 s per alignment. Auto-operation was comparable in accuracy, and reliable on normal eyes. While further investigations are needed for a clinical population, this method shows promise for utility in a clinical setting.

This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

Figure 1. The device was aligned by moving a motorized stage to align the detected pupil (yellow circle) in the iris camera images to the calibrated target location (white cross-hairs).

Figure 1. The device was aligned by moving a motorized stage to align the detected pupil (yellow circle) in the iris camera images to the calibrated target location (white cross-hairs).

×
×

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.

×