Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29971442›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2018

Comparing Clinical Perimetry and Population Receptive Field Measures in Patients with Choroideremia.

Edward H Silson, Tomas S Aleman, Aimee Willett, Leona W Serrano, Denise J Pearson, Andreas M Rauschecker, Albert M Maguire, Chris I Baker, Jean Bennett, Manzar Ashtari

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2018. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Cortical response to transient and long-term visual field loss.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Visual Field Reconstruction Using fMRI-Based Techniques.Translational vision science & technology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Edward H SilsonSection on Learning and Plasticity, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Tomas S AlemanCenter for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics (CAROT), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Aimee WillettCenter for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics (CAROT), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Leona W SerranoCenter for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics (CAROT), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Denise J PearsonCenter for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics (CAROT), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Andreas M RauscheckerDepartment of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Albert M MaguireCenter for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics (CAROT), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Chris I BakerSection on Learning and Plasticity, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States.
Jean BennettCenter for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics (CAROT), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Manzar AshtariCenter for Advanced Retinal and Ocular Therapeutics (CAROT), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
University of Pennsylvania · USNational Institutes of Health · USPenn Presbyterian Medical Center · US

Funding

Learning and plasticity in the human brainZIAMH002893 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI BAKER, CHRIS · 2009 to 2025
$6.8M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Choroideremia (CHM) is an X-linked recessive form of hereditary retinal degeneration, which, at advanced stages, leaves only small central islands of preserved retinal tissue. Unlike many other retinal diseases, the spared tissue in CHM supports excellent central vision and stable fixation. Such spared topography in CHM presents an ideal platform to explore the relationship between preserved central retinal structure and the retinotopic organization of visual cortex by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Methods: fMRI was conducted in four participants with CHM and four healthy control participants while they viewed drifting contrast pattern stimuli monocularly. A single ∼3-minute fMRI run was collected for each eye separately. fMRI data were analyzed using the population receptive field (pRF) modeling approach. Participants also underwent ophthalmic evaluations of visual acuity and static automatic perimetry. Results: The spatial distribution and strength of pRF estimates correlated positively and significantly with clinical outcome measures in most participants with CHM. Importantly, the positive relationship between clinical and pRF measurements increased with increasing disease progression. A less consistent relationship was observed for control participants. Conclusions: Although reflecting only a small sample size, clinical evaluations of visual function in participants with CHM were well characterized by the spatial distribution and strength of pRF estimates by using a single ∼3-minute fMRI experiment. fMRI data analyzed with pRF modeling may be an efficient and objective outcome measure to complement current ophthalmic evaluations. Specifically, pRF modeling may be a feasible approach for evaluating the impact of interventions to restore visual function.

Indexed as

AdultChoroideremiaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedRetinaVisual AcuityVisual CortexVisual FieldsVisual Field TestsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29971442
PMCPMC6110169
OpenAlexW2810783964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.