ReviewAnnual review of vision science2016
Probing Human Visual Deficits with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Review in Annual review of vision science, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Achromatopsia-Visual Cortex Stability and Plasticity in the Absence of Functional Cones.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Spared perilesional V1 activity underlies training-induced recovery of luminance detection sensitivity in cortically-blind patients.Nature communications · 2021Article
- The Mechanism of Macular Sparing.Annual review of vision science · 2021Article
- Article
- Restoring vision.Nature · 2018Review
- Unexplained Progressive Visual Field Loss in the Presence of Normal Retinotopic Maps.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Much remains to be understood about visual system malfunction following injury. The resulting deficits range from dense, visual field scotomas to mild dysfunction of visual perception. Despite the predictive value of anatomical localization studies, much patient-to-patient variability remains regarding (a) perceptual abilities following injury and (b) the capacity of individual patients for visual rehabilitation. Visual field perimetry is used to characterize the visual field deficits that result from visual system injury. However, standard perimetry mapping does not always precisely correspond to underlying anatomical or functional deficits. Functional magnetic resonance imaging can be used to probe the function of surviving visual circuits, allowing us to classify better how the pattern of injury relates to residual visual perception. Identifying pathways that are potentially modifiable by training may guide the development of improved strategies for visual rehabilitation. This review discusses primary visual cortex lesions, which cause dense contralateral scotomas.
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.