ArticleExperimental brain research2016
Temporal structure of human magnetic evoked fields.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanoparticle-based optical interfaces for retinal neuromodulation: a review.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Review
- Neural Mechanisms of Visual Motion Anomalies in Autism: A Two-Decade Update and Novel Aetiology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Occipital Magnocellular VEP Non-linearities Show a Short Latency Interaction Between Contrast and Facial Emotion.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2020Article
- Insensitivity to Fearful Emotion for Early ERP Components in High Autistic Tendency Is Associated with Lower Magnocellular Efficiency.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2017Article
- Pattern Electroretinography and Visual Evoked Potentials Provide Clinical Evidence of CNS Modulation of High- and Low-Contrast VEP Latency in Glaucoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2017Article
- To see or not to see; the ability of the magno- and parvocellular response to manifest itself in the VEP determines its appearance to a pattern reversing and pattern onset stimulus.Brain and behavior · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nonlinear analysis of the multifocal cortical visual evoked potential has allowed the identification of neural generation of higher-order nonlinear components by magnocellular and parvocellular neural streams. However, the location of individual brain sources that make such contributions to these evoked responses has not been studied. Thus, an m-sequence pseudorandom stimulus system was developed for use in magnetoencephalographic (MEG) studies. Five normal young adults were recorded using an Elekta TRIUX MEG with 306 sensors. Visual stimuli comprised a nine-patch dartboard stimulus, and each patch fluctuated between two luminance levels with separate recordings carried out at low (24 %) and high (96 %) temporal contrast. Sensor-space analysis of MEG evoked fields identified components of the first- and second-order Wiener kernel decomposition that showed qualitative similarity with EEG-based cortical VEP recordings. The first slice of the second-order response (K2.1) was already saturated at 24 % contrast, while the major waveform of the second slice of the second-order response (K2.2) grew strongly with contrast, consistent with properties of the magnocellular and parvocellular neurons. Minimum norm estimates of cortical source localization showed almost simultaneous activation of V1 and MT+ activations with latencies only a little greater that those reported for first neural spikes in primate single cell studies. Time-frequency analysis of the kernel responses from five minimum norm estimate scout sources shows contributions from higher-frequency bands for the first compared with the second slice response, consistent with the proposed neural sources. In support of this magno/parvo break-up, the onset latencies of the K2.2 responses were delayed by approximately 30 ms compared with K2.1 responses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.