In the above examples, the tear film was not visually resolvable whereas in
Figure 6 the interfaces of the tear film were visible. There are two reasons why the tear film is resolvable in this case. First, it is deduced that this was taken after the subject blinked. A capture taken immediately prior (to the blinking) did not show the tear film and gave a 2 µm reduction in epithelial thickness. As the amplitude of Fresnel reflection from the tear film – air interface is much greater than the scattering from the epithelium – tear film interface, all presented segmentations of the epithelial layer includes the tear film. The tear film is a dynamic layer, with variation of thickness of 2 µm in a blink cycle being well within expectations.
41 The second reason for resolution of tear film in
Figure 6 is apparent from comparison of the image with the corneal surface in
Figure 4. Compared to
Figure 4, the signal from the air-tear film interface in
Figure 6 was much weaker, with the PSF sides not extending as far due to the reduced amplitude. In
Figure 4, even if the tear film was the same thickness, the signal from it would be masked by the much bigger air-tear film interface reflection. The reason for this difference between
Figures 4 and
6, will be a lateral shift of imaging location away from the normal orientation position in the confocally gated dimension. Although the air-tear film signal is specular, and its magnitude highly dependent on position, the signal from the mucous tear film-epithelium boundary was clearly diffuse (see
Fig. 6), so its amplitude remains unchanged with slight lateral position changes. The geometrical distortion of measured thickness due to this amount of mispositioning from the normal orientation was negligible in comparison to the measured differences, therefore, the reason for the epithelium thickness fluctuations reflects changes in the tear film thickness. A larger repeatability error for the thickness of the epithelium, compared with Bowman's layer, has been consistently reported,
3,8,25,42 with tear film variability likely to be a main cause.