Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27565016›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2016

The effects of orientation and attention during surround suppression of small image features: A 7 Tesla fMRI study.

Michael-Paul Schallmo, Andrea N Grant, Philip C Burton, Cheryl A Olman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Impaired Contour Object Perception in Psychosis.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026
    Article
  4. Impact of Rod-Dominant Mesopic Conditions on Spatial Summation and Surround Suppression in Early Visual Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impaired contour object perception in psychosis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Weaker neural suppression in autism.Nature communications · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael-Paul Schallmo
Andrea N Grant
Philip C Burton
Cheryl A Olman

Funding

Visual TestingP30EY011374 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI NEWMAN, ERIC A · 1996 to 2019
$8.8M
NMR Imaging and SpectroscopyP41EB015894 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI UGURBIL, KAMIL · 2012 to 2017
$8.4M
PREDOCTORAL TRAINING OF NEUROSCIENTISTST32GM008471 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI EBNER, TIMOTHY J · 1993 to 2017
$4.9M
Institutional Center Cores for Advanced NeuroimagingP30NS076408 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI UGURBIL, KAMIL · 2012 to 2020
$4.2M
MULTICHANNEL TRANSMIT FRONTEND FOR 7 TESLAS10RR026783 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI UGURBIL, KAMIL · 2009 to 2009
$500k
Localized fMRI of heterogeneous neural responsesR21NS075525 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI OLMAN, CHERYL A. · 2012 to 2013
$394k
NCRR NIH HHS S10 RR026783NEI NIH HHS P30 EY011374NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015894NINDS NIH HHS P30 NS076408NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS075525
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although V1 responses are driven primarily by elements within a neuron's receptive field, which subtends about 1° visual angle in parafoveal regions, previous work has shown that localized fMRI responses to visual elements reflect not only local feature encoding but also long-range pattern attributes. However, separating the response to an image feature from the response to the surrounding stimulus and studying the interactions between these two responses demands both spatial precision and signal independence, which may be challenging to attain with fMRI. The present study used 7 Tesla fMRI with 1.2-mm resolution to measure the interactions between small sinusoidal grating patches (targets) at 3° eccentricity and surrounds of various sizes and orientations to test the conditions under which localized, context-dependent fMRI responses could be predicted from either psychophysical or electrophysiological data. Targets were presented at 8%, 16%, and 32% contrast while manipulating (a) spatial extent of parallel (strongly suppressive) or orthogonal (weakly suppressive) surrounds, (b) locus of attention, (c) stimulus onset asynchrony between target and surround, and (d) blocked versus event-related design. In all experiments, the V1 fMRI signal was lower when target stimuli were flanked by parallel versus orthogonal context. Attention amplified fMRI responses to all stimuli but did not show a selective effect on central target responses or a measurable effect on orientation-dependent surround suppression. Suppression of the V1 fMRI response by parallel surrounds was stronger than predicted from psychophysics but showed a better match to previous electrophysiological reports.

Indexed as

AdultAttentionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeuronsOrientationPerceptual MaskingPsychophysicsVisual CortexVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID27565016
PMCPMC5015919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.