Document Type




Format of Original

14 p.

Publication Date



Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology

Source Publication

Translational Vision Science and Technology

Source ISSN


Original Item ID

DOI: 10.1167/tvst.5.1.10


Purpose: To characterize the effects of intraframe distortion due to involuntary eye motion on measures of cone mosaic geometry derived from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope (AOSLO) images.

Methods: We acquired AOSLO image sequences from 20 subjects at 1.0, 2.0, and 5.08 temporal from fixation. An expert grader manually selected 10 minimally distorted reference frames from each 150-frame sequence for subsequent registration. Cone mosaic geometry was measured in all registered images (n ¼ 600) using multiple metrics, and the repeatability of these metrics was used to assess the impact of the distortions from each reference frame. In nine additional subjects, we compared AOSLO-derived measurements to those from adaptive optics (AO)-fundus images, which do not contain system-imposed intraframe distortions.

Results: We observed substantial variation across subjects in the repeatability of density (1.2%–8.7%), inter-cell distance (0.8%–4.6%), percentage of six-sided Voronoi cells (0.8%–10.6%), and Voronoi cell area regularity (VCAR) (1.2%–13.2%). The average of all metrics extracted from AOSLO images (with the exception of VCAR) was not significantly different than those derived from AO-fundus images, though there was variability between individual images.

Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that the intraframe distortion found in AOSLO images can affect the accuracy and repeatability of cone mosaic metrics. It may be possible to use multiple images from the same retinal area to approximate a ‘‘distortionless’’ image, though more work is needed to evaluate the feasibility of this approach.

Translational Relevance: Even in subjects with good fixation, images from AOSLOs contain intraframe distortions due to eye motion during scanning. The existence of these artifacts emphasizes the need for caution when interpreting results derived from scanning instruments.


Published version. Translational Vision Science & Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1 (February 2016): 1-14. DOI. © 2016 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. Used with permission. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License