4.6 Article

In vivo dark-field imaging of the retinal pigment epithelium cell mosaic

Journal

BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS
Volume 4, Issue 9, Pages 1710-1723

Publisher

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/BOE.4.001710

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [P30EY001931, UL1RR031973, T32GM07356]
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness (RPB)
  3. Burroughs Wellcome Fund
  4. RD & Linda Peters Foundation
  5. RPB
  6. National Center for Research Resources, NIH [C06-RR016511]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Non-invasive reflectance imaging of the human RPE cell mosaic is demonstrated using a modified confocal adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope (AOSLO). The confocal circular aperture in front of the imaging detector was replaced with a combination of a circular aperture 4 to 16 Airy disks in diameter and an opaque filament, 1 or 3 Airy disks thick. This arrangement reveals the RPE cell mosaic by dramatically attenuating the light backscattered by the photoreceptors. The RPE cell mosaic was visualized in all 7 recruited subjects at multiple retinal locations with varying degrees of contrast and cross-talk from the photoreceptors. Various experimental settings were explored for improving the visualization of the RPE cell boundaries including: pinhole diameter, filament thickness, illumination and imaging pupil apodization, unmatched imaging and illumination focus, wavelength and polarization. None of these offered an obvious path for enhancing image contrast. The demonstrated implementation of dark-field AOSLO imaging using 790 nm light requires low light exposures relative to light safety standards and it is more comfortable for the subject than the traditional autofluorescence RPE imaging with visible light. Both these factors make RPE dark-field imaging appealing for studying mechanisms of eye disease, as well as a clinical tool for screening and monitoring disease progression. (C) 2013 Optical Society of America

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available