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

E. Warr, Jenna Grieshop, Robert F Cooper, Joseph Carroll
{"title":"The effect of sampling window size on topographical maps of foveal cone density","authors":"E. Warr, Jenna Grieshop, Robert F Cooper, Joseph Carroll","doi":"10.3389/fopht.2024.1348950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To characterize the effect of sampling window size on maps of foveal cone density derived from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope (AOSLO) images of the cone mosaic.Forty-four AOSLO-derived montages of the foveal cone mosaic (300 x 300µm) were used for this study (from 44 individuals with normal vision). Cone photoreceptor coordinates were semi-automatically identified by one experienced grader. From these coordinates, cone density matrices across each foveal montage were derived using 10 different sampling window sizes containing 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, or 200 cones. For all 440 density matrices, we extracted the location and value of peak cone density (PCD), the cone density centroid (CDC) location, and cone density at the CDC.Across all window sizes, PCD values were larger than those extracted at the CDC location, though the difference between these density values decreased as the sampling window size increased (p<0.0001). Overall, both PCD (r=-0.8099, p=0.0045) and density at the CDC (r=-0.7596, p=0.0108) decreased with increasing sampling window size. This reduction was more pronounced for PCD, with a 27.8% lower PCD value on average when using the 200-cone versus the 5-cone window (compared to only a 3.5% reduction for density at the CDC between these same window sizes). While the PCD and CDC locations did not occur at the same location within a given montage, there was no significant relationship between this PCD-CDC offset and sampling window size (p=0.8919). The CDC location was less variable across sampling windows, with an average per-participant 95% confidence ellipse area across the 10 window sizes of 47.56µm² (compared to 844.10µm² for the PCD location, p<0.0001).CDC metrics appear more stable across varying sampling window sizes than PCD metrics. Understanding how density values change according to the method used to sample the cone mosaic may facilitate comparing cone density data across different studies.","PeriodicalId":510339,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ophthalmology","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fopht.2024.1348950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To characterize the effect of sampling window size on maps of foveal cone density derived from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope (AOSLO) images of the cone mosaic.Forty-four AOSLO-derived montages of the foveal cone mosaic (300 x 300µm) were used for this study (from 44 individuals with normal vision). Cone photoreceptor coordinates were semi-automatically identified by one experienced grader. From these coordinates, cone density matrices across each foveal montage were derived using 10 different sampling window sizes containing 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, or 200 cones. For all 440 density matrices, we extracted the location and value of peak cone density (PCD), the cone density centroid (CDC) location, and cone density at the CDC.Across all window sizes, PCD values were larger than those extracted at the CDC location, though the difference between these density values decreased as the sampling window size increased (p<0.0001). Overall, both PCD (r=-0.8099, p=0.0045) and density at the CDC (r=-0.7596, p=0.0108) decreased with increasing sampling window size. This reduction was more pronounced for PCD, with a 27.8% lower PCD value on average when using the 200-cone versus the 5-cone window (compared to only a 3.5% reduction for density at the CDC between these same window sizes). While the PCD and CDC locations did not occur at the same location within a given montage, there was no significant relationship between this PCD-CDC offset and sampling window size (p=0.8919). The CDC location was less variable across sampling windows, with an average per-participant 95% confidence ellipse area across the 10 window sizes of 47.56µm² (compared to 844.10µm² for the PCD location, p<0.0001).CDC metrics appear more stable across varying sampling window sizes than PCD metrics. Understanding how density values change according to the method used to sample the cone mosaic may facilitate comparing cone density data across different studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
取样窗口大小对眼窝视锥密度地形图的影响
本研究使用了 44 幅从自适应光学扫描光眼底镜(AOSLO)获得的眼窝锥体镶嵌图像(300 x 300 微米)的 AOSLO 蒙太奇(来自 44 名视力正常的个体)。锥体光感受器坐标由一名经验丰富的分级员半自动确定。根据这些坐标,使用包含 5、10、15、20、40、60、80、100、150 或 200 个锥体的 10 种不同取样窗口大小,得出每个眼窝蒙太奇的锥体密度矩阵。在所有 440 个密度矩阵中,我们提取了锥体密度峰值 (PCD) 的位置和值、锥体密度中心点 (CDC) 的位置以及 CDC 处的锥体密度。总体而言,随着采样窗口尺寸的增大,PCD(r=-0.8099,p=0.0045)和 CDC 处的密度(r=-0.7596,p=0.0108)都有所下降。对于 PCD 而言,这种降低更为明显,使用 200 锥体窗口与 5 锥体窗口相比,PCD 值平均降低了 27.8%(相比之下,在相同窗口尺寸下,CDC 密度仅降低了 3.5%)。虽然在给定的蒙太奇中,PCD 和 CDC 的位置不在同一位置,但 PCD-CDC 偏移与采样窗口大小之间没有显著关系(p=0.8919)。CDC位置在不同采样窗口之间的变化较小,在10个窗口大小中,每个参与者的平均95%置信椭圆面积为47.56µm²(而PCD位置的置信椭圆面积为844.10µm²,p<0.0001)。了解密度值如何随着锥体镶嵌取样方法的不同而变化,有助于比较不同研究的锥体密度数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Oculometric biomarkers of visuomotor deficits in clinically asymptomatic patients with systemic lupus erythematosus undergoing long-term hydroxychloroquine treatment The significance of growth shells in development of symmetry, transparency, and refraction of the human lens Editorial: Retinal metabolism in health and disease Computational single fundus image restoration techniques: a review Systematic review of ocular surface treatments in the setting of thyroid eye disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1