Comparison of confocal and non-confocal split-detection cone photoreceptor imaging.

Alfredo Dubra // Publications // Feb 01 2021

PubMed ID: 33680539

Author(s): Sredar N, Razeen M, Kowalski B, Carroll J, Dubra A. Comparison of confocal and non-confocal split-detection cone photoreceptor imaging. Biomed Opt Express. 2021 Jan 8;12(2):737-755. doi: 10.1364/BOE.403907. eCollection 2021 Feb 1. PMID 33680539

Journal: Biomedical Optics Express, Volume 12, Issue 2, Feb 2021

Quadrant reflectance confocal and non-confocal scanning light ophthalmoscope images of the photoreceptor mosaic were recorded in a subject with congenital achromatopsia (ACHM) and a normal control. These images, captured with various circular and annular apertures, were used to calculate split-detection images, revealing two cone photoreceptor contrast mechanisms. The first contrast mechanism, maximal in the non-confocal 5.5-10 Airy disk diameter annular region, is unrelated to the cone reflectivity in confocal or flood illumination imaging. The second mechanism, maximal for confocal split-detection, is related to the cone reflectivity in confocal or flood illumination imaging that originates from the ellipsoid zone and/or inner-outer segment junction. Seeking to maximize image contrast, split-detection images were generated using various quadrant detector combinations, with opposite (diagonal) quadrant detectors producing the highest contrast. Split-detection generated with the addition of adjacent quadrant detector pairs, shows lower contrast, while azimuthal split-detection images, calculated from adjacent quadrant detectors, showed the lowest contrast. Finally, the integration of image pairs with orthogonal split directions was used to produce images in which the photoreceptor contrast does not change with direction.

© 2021 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement.