A large number of human retinal diseases are characterized by a progressive loss of cones, the photoreceptors critical for visual acuity and color perception. Adaptive Optics (AO) imaging presents a potential method to study these cells in vivo. However, AO imaging in ophthalmology is a relatively new phenomenon and quantitative analysis of these images remains difficult and tedious using manual methods. This paper illustrates a novel semi-automated quantitative technique enabling registration of AO images to macular landmarks, cone counting and its radius quantification at specified distances from the foveal center. The new cone counting approach employs the circle Hough transform (cHT) and is compared to automated counting methods, as well as arbitrated manual cone identification. We explore the impact of varying the circle detection parameter on the validity of cHT cone counting and discuss the potential role of using this algorithm in detecting both cones and rods separately.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Optics Express
#1,714
of 3,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,297
of 296,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Optics Express
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
