Distribution differences of macular cones measured by AOSLO: Variation in slope from fovea to periphery more pronounced than differences in total cones

HIGHLIGHTSCone density varies among individuals by more than just a scalar factor.Cone density in the macular center is inversely proportional to the density at 7 deg.Total cones in the retinal can be modelled from the density along 4 meridians.Variation in cone density is greater nearer the fovea.Variation in total cones in the central 14 deg is less variable than for the fovea. ABSTRACT Large individual differences in cone densities occur even in healthy, young adults with low refractive error. We investigated whether cone density follows a simple model that some individuals have more cones, or whether individuals differ in both number and distribution of cones. We quantified cones in the eyes of 36 healthy young adults with low refractive error using a custom adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope. The average cone density in the temporal meridian was, for the mean ± SD, 43,216 ± 6039, 27,466 ± 3496, 14,996 ± 1563, and 12,207 ± 1278 cones/mm2 for 270, 630, 1480, and 2070 &mgr;m from the foveal center. Cone densities at 630 &mgr;m retinal eccentricity were uncorrelated to those at 2070 &mgr;m, ruling out models with a constant or proportional relation of cone density to eccentricity. Subjects with high central macula cone densities had low peripheral cone densities. The cone density ratio (2070:630 &mgr;m) was negatively correlated with cone density at 630 &mgr;m, consistent with variations in the proportion of peripheral cones migrating towards the center. We modelled the total cones within a central radius of 7 deg, using the temporal data and our published cone densities for temporal, nasal, superior, and inferior meridians. We computed an average of 221,000 cones. The coefficient of variation was 0.0767 for total cones, but higher for samples near the fovea. Individual differences occur both in total cones and other developmental factors related to cone distribution.

[1]  Kaccie Y. Li,et al.  Intersubject variability of foveal cone photoreceptor density in relation to eye length. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  D. Copenhagen,et al.  A direct and melanopsin-dependent fetal light response regulates mouse eye development , 2013, Nature.

[3]  Christopher A. Clark,et al.  Cone photoreceptor packing density and the outer nuclear layer thickness in healthy subjects. , 2012, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[4]  Stephen A. Burns,et al.  The effect of eye shape on retinal responses , 1992 .

[5]  C. Curcio,et al.  Variability in Human Cone Topography Assessed by Adaptive Optics Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy. , 2015, American journal of ophthalmology.

[6]  A. Hendrickson,et al.  A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the human fovea during development , 1986, Vision Research.

[7]  S A Burns,et al.  Foveal cone photopigment distribution: small alterations associated with macular pigment distribution. , 1998, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  V. Greenstein,et al.  A study of factors affecting the human cone photoreceptor density measured by adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope. , 2013, Experimental eye research.

[9]  Stephen A Burns,et al.  Individual variations in human cone photoreceptor packing density: variations with refractive error. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  Toco Y P Chui,et al.  Adaptive-optics imaging of human cone photoreceptor distribution. , 2008, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[11]  Anupam K. Garg,et al.  The reliability of parafoveal cone density measurements , 2014, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[12]  A. Hendrickson,et al.  The foveal avascular region of developing human retina. , 2008, Archives of ophthalmology.

[13]  A. Hendrickson,et al.  Human photoreceptor topography , 1990, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[14]  Ryo Obata,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Cone Photoreceptor Distribution and Its Relationship with Axial Length, Age, and Early Age-Related Macular Degeneration , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  Toco Y P Chui,et al.  Variation of cone photoreceptor packing density with retinal eccentricity and age. , 2011, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  M. Killingsworth,et al.  Evolution of geographic atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium , 1988, Eye.

[17]  M. Morrison,et al.  Genetic Variations Strongly Influence Phenotypic Outcome in the Mouse Retina , 2011, PloS one.

[18]  Daniel X Hammer,et al.  Foveal fine structure in retinopathy of prematurity: an adaptive optics Fourier domain optical coherence tomography study. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[19]  Christopher A. Clark,et al.  Eye Shape Using Partial Coherence Interferometry, Autorefraction, and SD-OCT , 2015, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[20]  Gang Huang,et al.  Lucky averaging: quality improvement of adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope images. , 2011, Optics letters.

[21]  Robert W. Williams,et al.  Genetic modulation of horizontal cell number in the mouse retina , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  P K Ahnelt,et al.  The photoreceptor mosaic , 1998, Eye.

[23]  Ann E Elsner,et al.  In vivo adaptive optics microvascular imaging in diabetic patients without clinically severe diabetic retinopathy. , 2014, Biomedical optics express.

[24]  A. Elsner,et al.  Foveal phase retardation changes associated with normal aging , 2011, Vision Research.

[25]  H. Heimann,et al.  Atrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium following vitrectomy with trypan blue , 2009, International Ophthalmology.

[26]  Tom Wright,et al.  Cone-Photoreceptor Density in Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes. , 2015, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.