Cargando…

Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic

PURPOSE: To evaluate how metrics used to describe the cone mosaic change in response to simulated photoreceptor undersampling (i.e., cell loss or misidentification). METHODS: Using an adaptive optics ophthalmoscope, we acquired images of the cone mosaic from the center of fixation to 10° along the t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cooper, Robert F., Wilk, Melissa A., Tarima, Sergey, Carroll, Joseph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27273598
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-19072
_version_ 1782436310291578880
author Cooper, Robert F.
Wilk, Melissa A.
Tarima, Sergey
Carroll, Joseph
author_facet Cooper, Robert F.
Wilk, Melissa A.
Tarima, Sergey
Carroll, Joseph
author_sort Cooper, Robert F.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate how metrics used to describe the cone mosaic change in response to simulated photoreceptor undersampling (i.e., cell loss or misidentification). METHODS: Using an adaptive optics ophthalmoscope, we acquired images of the cone mosaic from the center of fixation to 10° along the temporal, superior, inferior, and nasal meridians in 20 healthy subjects. Regions of interest (n = 1780) were extracted at regular intervals along each meridian. Cone mosaic geometry was assessed using a variety of metrics − density, density recovery profile distance (DRPD), nearest neighbor distance (NND), intercell distance (ICD), farthest neighbor distance (FND), percentage of six-sided Voronoi cells, nearest neighbor regularity (NNR), number of neighbors regularity (NoNR), and Voronoi cell area regularity (VCAR). The “performance” of each metric was evaluated by determining the level of simulated loss necessary to obtain 80% statistical power. RESULTS: Of the metrics assessed, NND and DRPD were the least sensitive to undersampling, classifying mosaics that lost 50% of their coordinates as indistinguishable from normal. The NoNR was the most sensitive, detecting a significant deviation from normal with only a 10% cell loss. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of cone spacing metrics makes them unsuitable for reliably detecting small deviations from normal or for tracking small changes in the mosaic over time. In contrast, regularity metrics are more sensitive to diffuse loss and, therefore, better suited for detecting such changes, provided the fraction of misidentified cells is minimal. Combining metrics with a variety of sensitivities may provide a more complete picture of the integrity of the photoreceptor mosaic.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4898203
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48982032016-12-01 Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic Cooper, Robert F. Wilk, Melissa A. Tarima, Sergey Carroll, Joseph Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Multidisciplinary Ophthalmic Imaging PURPOSE: To evaluate how metrics used to describe the cone mosaic change in response to simulated photoreceptor undersampling (i.e., cell loss or misidentification). METHODS: Using an adaptive optics ophthalmoscope, we acquired images of the cone mosaic from the center of fixation to 10° along the temporal, superior, inferior, and nasal meridians in 20 healthy subjects. Regions of interest (n = 1780) were extracted at regular intervals along each meridian. Cone mosaic geometry was assessed using a variety of metrics − density, density recovery profile distance (DRPD), nearest neighbor distance (NND), intercell distance (ICD), farthest neighbor distance (FND), percentage of six-sided Voronoi cells, nearest neighbor regularity (NNR), number of neighbors regularity (NoNR), and Voronoi cell area regularity (VCAR). The “performance” of each metric was evaluated by determining the level of simulated loss necessary to obtain 80% statistical power. RESULTS: Of the metrics assessed, NND and DRPD were the least sensitive to undersampling, classifying mosaics that lost 50% of their coordinates as indistinguishable from normal. The NoNR was the most sensitive, detecting a significant deviation from normal with only a 10% cell loss. CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of cone spacing metrics makes them unsuitable for reliably detecting small deviations from normal or for tracking small changes in the mosaic over time. In contrast, regularity metrics are more sensitive to diffuse loss and, therefore, better suited for detecting such changes, provided the fraction of misidentified cells is minimal. Combining metrics with a variety of sensitivities may provide a more complete picture of the integrity of the photoreceptor mosaic. The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology 2016-06-06 2016-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4898203/ /pubmed/27273598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-19072 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
spellingShingle Multidisciplinary Ophthalmic Imaging
Cooper, Robert F.
Wilk, Melissa A.
Tarima, Sergey
Carroll, Joseph
Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic
title Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic
title_full Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic
title_fullStr Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic
title_short Evaluating Descriptive Metrics of the Human Cone Mosaic
title_sort evaluating descriptive metrics of the human cone mosaic
topic Multidisciplinary Ophthalmic Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4898203/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27273598
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/iovs.16-19072
work_keys_str_mv AT cooperrobertf evaluatingdescriptivemetricsofthehumanconemosaic
AT wilkmelissaa evaluatingdescriptivemetricsofthehumanconemosaic
AT tarimasergey evaluatingdescriptivemetricsofthehumanconemosaic
AT carrolljoseph evaluatingdescriptivemetricsofthehumanconemosaic