ArticleBiomedical optics express2015
Impact of motion-associated noise on intrinsic optical signal imaging in humans with optical coherence tomography.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Reflectivity Measure to Quantify Bruch's Membrane Calcification in Patients with Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum Using Optical Coherence Tomography.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Optophysiological Characterisation of Inner Retina Responses with High-Resolution Optical Coherence Tomography.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- In vivo optical imaging of physiological responses to photostimulation in human photoreceptors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016Article
- The Photosensitivity of Rhodopsin Bleaching and Light-Induced Increases of Fundus Reflectance in Mice Measured In Vivo With Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that phototransduction can be studied in the human eye in vivo by imaging of fast intrinsic optical signals (IOS). There is consensus concerning the limiting influence of motion-associated imaging noise on the reproducibility of IOS-measurements, especially in those employing spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). However, no study to date has conducted a comprehensive analysis of this noise in the context of IOS-imaging. In this study, we discuss biophysical correlates of IOS, and we address motion-associated imaging noise by providing correctional post-processing methods. In order to avoid cross-talk of adjacent IOS of opposite signal polarity, cellular resolution and stability of imaging to the level of individual cones is likely needed. The optical Stiles-Crawford effect can be a source of significant IOS-imaging noise if alignment with the peak of the Stiles-Crawford function cannot be maintained. Therefore, complete head stabilization by implementation of a bite-bar may be critical to maintain a constant pupil entry position of the OCT beam. Due to depth-dependent sensitivity fall-off, heartbeat and breathing associated axial movements can cause tissue reflectivity to vary by 29% over time, although known methods can be implemented to null these effects. Substantial variations in reflectivity can be caused by variable illumination due to changes in the beam pupil entry position and angle, which can be reduced by an adaptive algorithm based on slope-fitting of optical attenuation in the choriocapillary lamina.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.