Search for: All records

In prior art, advances in adaptive optics scanning laser ophthalmoscope (AOSLO) technology have enabled cones in the human fovea to be resolved in healthy eyes with normal vision and low to moderate refractive errors, providing new insight into human foveal anatomy, visual perception, and retinal degenerative diseases. These high-resolution ophthalmoscopes require careful alignment of each optical subsystem to ensure diffraction-limited imaging performance, which is necessary for resolving the smallest foveal cones. This paper presents a systematic and rigorous methodology for building, aligning, calibrating, and testing an AOSLO designed for imaging the cone mosaic of the central fovea in humans with cellular resolution. This methodology uses a two-stage alignment procedure and thorough system testing to achieve diffraction-limited performance. Results from retinal imaging of healthy human subjects under 30 years of age with refractive errors of less than 3.5 diopters using either 680 nm or 840 nm light show that the system can resolve cones at the very center of the fovea, the region where the cones are smallest and most densely packed. 

In this paper, we present a review of how the various aspects of any study using an eye tracker (such as the instrument, methodology, environment, participant, etc.) affect the quality of the recorded eye-tracking data and the obtained eye-movement and gaze measures. We take this review to represent the empirical foundation for reporting guidelines of any study involving an eye tracker. We compare this empirical foundation to five existing reporting guidelines and to a database of 207 published eye-tracking studies. We find that reporting guidelines vary substantially and do not match with actual reporting practices. We end by deriving a minimal, flexible reporting guideline based on empirical research (Section “An empirically based minimal reporting guideline”).