Gao Z, Hwang A, Zhai G, Peli E.
Correcting geometric distortions in stereoscopic 3D imaging. PLoS One 2018;13(10):e0205032.
AbstractMotion in a distorted virtual 3D space may cause visually induced motion sickness. Geometric distortions in stereoscopic 3D can result from mismatches among image capture, display, and viewing parameters. Three pairs of potential mismatches are considered, including 1) camera separation vs. eye separation, 2) camera field of view (FOV) vs. screen FOV, and 3) camera convergence distance (i.e., distance from the cameras to the point where the convergence axes intersect) vs. screen distance from the observer. The effect of the viewer's head positions (i.e., head lateral offset from the screen center) is also considered. The geometric model is expressed as a function of camera convergence distance, the ratios of the three parameter-pairs, and the offset of the head position. We analyze the impacts of these five variables separately and their interactions on geometric distortions. This model facilitates insights into the various distortions and leads to methods whereby the user can minimize geometric distortions caused by some parameter-pair mismatches through adjusting of other parameter pairs. For example, in postproduction, viewers can correct for a mismatch between camera separation and eye separation by adjusting their distance from the real screen and changing the effective camera convergence distance.
Grant EP, Im K, Ahtam B, Laurentys CT, Chan W-M, Brainard M, Chew S, Drottar M, Robson CD, Drmic I, Engle EC.
Altered White Matter Organization in the TUBB3 E410K Syndrome. Cereb Cortex 2018;
AbstractSeven unrelated individuals (four pediatric, three adults) with the TUBB3 E410K syndrome, harboring identical de novo heterozygous TUBB3 c.1228 G>A mutations, underwent neuropsychological testing and neuroimaging. Despite the absence of cortical malformations, they have intellectual and social disabilities. To search for potential etiologies for these deficits, we compared their brain's structural and white matter organization to 22 controls using structural and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Diffusion images were processed to calculate fractional anisotropy (FA) and perform tract reconstructions. Cortical parcellation-based network analysis and gyral topology-based FA analyses were performed. Major interhemispheric, projection and intrahemispheric tracts were manually segmented. Subjects had decreased corpus callosum volume and decreased network efficiency. While only pediatric subjects had diffuse decreases in FA predominantly affecting mid- and long-range tracts, only adult subjects had white matter volume loss associated with decreased cortical surface area. All subjects showed aberrant corticospinal tract trajectory and bilateral absence of the dorsal language network long segment. Furthermore, pediatric subjects had more tracts with decreased FA compared with controls than did adult subjects. These findings define a TUBB3 E410K neuroimaging endophenotype and lead to the hypothesis that the age-related changes are due to microscopic intrahemispheric misguided axons that are pruned during maturation.
Gross JG, Glassman AR, Liu D, Sun JK, Antoszyk AN, Baker CW, Bressler NM, Elman MJ, Ferris FL, Gardner TW, Jampol LM, Martin DF, Melia M, Stockdale CR, Beck RW, Beck RW.
Five-Year Outcomes of Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intravitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2018;136(10):1138-1148.
AbstractImportance: Ranibizumab is a viable treatment option for eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) through 2 years. However, longer-term results are needed. Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of 0.5-mg intravitreous ranibizumab vs panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) over 5 years for PDR. Design, Setting, and Participants: Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated 394 study eyes with PDR enrolled February through December 2012. Analysis began in January 2018. Interventions: Eyes were randomly assigned to receive intravitreous ranibizumab (n = 191) or PRP (n = 203). Frequency of ranibizumab was based on a protocol-specified retreatment algorithm. Diabetic macular edema could be managed with ranibizumab in either group. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean change in visual acuity (intention-to-treat analysis) was the main outcome. Secondary outcomes included peripheral visual field loss, development of vision-impairing diabetic macular edema, and ocular and systemic safety. Results: The 5-year visit was completed by 184 of 277 participants (66% excluding deaths). Of 305 enrolled participants, the mean (SD) age was 52 (12) years, 135 (44%) were women, and 160 (52%) were white. For the ranibizumab and PRP groups, the mean (SD) number of injections over 5 years was 19.2 (10.9) and 5.4 (7.9), respectively; the mean (SD) change in visual acuity letter score was 3.1 (14.3) and 3.0 (10.5) letters, respectively (adjusted difference, 0.6; 95% CI, -2.3 to 3.5; P = .68); the mean visual acuity was 20/25 (approximate Snellen equivalent) in both groups at 5 years. The mean (SD) change in cumulative visual field total point score was -330 (645) vs -527 (635) dB in the ranibizumab (n = 41) and PRP (n = 38) groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 208 dB; 95% CI, 9-408). Vision-impairing diabetic macular edema developed in 27 and 53 eyes in the ranibizumab and PRP groups, respectively (cumulative probabilities: 22% vs 38%; hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). No statistically significant differences between groups in major systemic adverse event rates were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Although loss to follow-up was relatively high, visual acuity in most study eyes that completed follow-up was very good at 5 years and was similar in both groups. Severe vision loss or serious PDR complications were uncommon with PRP or ranibizumab; however, the ranibizumab group had lower rates of developing vision-impairing diabetic macular edema and less visual field loss. Patient-specific factors, including anticipated visit compliance, cost, and frequency of visits, should be considered when choosing treatment for patients with PDR. These findings support either anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy or PRP as viable treatments for patients with PDR. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489189.