Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 21, 2025
Topographical Estimation of Visual Population Receptive Fields by fMRI
Published on: February 3, 2015
The effect of sampling window size on topographical maps of foveal cone density
Emma Warr1, Jenna Grieshop1,2, Robert F Cooper1,2
1Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Purpose:
To characterize the effect of sampling window size on maps of foveal cone density derived from adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope (AOSLO) images of the cone mosaic.
Methods:
Forty-four AOSLO-derived montages of the foveal cone mosaic (300 x 300µm) were used for this study (from 44 individuals with normal vision). Cone photoreceptor coordinates were semi-automatically identified by one experienced grader. From these coordinates, cone density matrices across each foveal montage were derived using 10 different sampling window sizes containing 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, or 200 cones. For all 440 density matrices, we extracted the location and value of peak cone density (PCD), the cone density centroid (CDC) location, and cone density at the CDC.
Results:
Across all window sizes, PCD values were larger than those extracted at the CDC location, though the difference between these density values decreased as the sampling window size increased (p<0.0001). Overall, both PCD (r=-0.8099, p=0.0045) and density at the CDC (r=-0.7596, p=0.0108) decreased with increasing sampling window size. This reduction was more pronounced for PCD, with a 27.8% lower PCD value on average when using the 200-cone versus the 5-cone window (compared to only a 3.5% reduction for density at the CDC between these same window sizes). While the PCD and CDC locations did not occur at the same location within a given montage, there was no significant relationship between this PCD-CDC offset and sampling window size (p=0.8919). The CDC location was less variable across sampling windows, with an average per-participant 95% confidence ellipse area across the 10 window sizes of 47.56µm² (compared to 844.10µm² for the PCD location, p<0.0001).
Conclusion:
CDC metrics appear more stable across varying sampling window sizes than PCD metrics. Understanding how density values change according to the method used to sample the cone mosaic may facilitate comparing cone density data across different studies.
