Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33503479›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Neural markers of suppression in impaired binocular vision.

Freya A Lygo, Bruno Richard, Alex R Wade, Antony B Morland, Daniel H Baker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Peripheral Binocular Imbalance in Anisometropic and Strabismic Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024
    Article
  7. Dissociable Neural Mechanisms Underlie the Effects of Attention on Visual Appearance and Response Bias.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Freya A LygoDepartment of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York, UK; Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK.
Bruno RichardDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Rutgers University-Newark, Newark, NJ, USA.
Alex R WadeDepartment of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York, UK; York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.
Antony B MorlandDepartment of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York, UK; York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, Heslington, York, UK.
Daniel H BakerDepartment of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, York, UK; York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York, Heslington, York, UK. Electronic address: daniel.baker@york.ac.uk.
University of York · GBRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 105624
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even after conventional patching treatment, individuals with a history of amblyopia typically lack good stereo vision. This is often attributed to atypical suppression between the eyes, yet the specific mechanism is still unclear. Guided by computational models of binocular vision, we tested explicit predictions about how neural responses to contrast might differ in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Participants with a history of amblyopia (N = 25), and control participants with typical visual development (N = 19) took part in the study. Neural responses to different combinations of contrast in the left and right eyes, were measured using both electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Stimuli were sinusoidal gratings with a spatial frequency of 3c/deg, flickering at 4 Hz. In the fMRI experiment, we also ran population receptive field and retinotopic mapping sequences, and a phase-encoded localiser stimulus, to identify voxels in primary visual cortex (V1) sensitive to the main stimulus. Neural responses in both modalities increased monotonically with stimulus contrast. When measured with EEG, responses were attenuated in the weaker eye, consistent with a fixed tonic suppression of that eye. When measured with fMRI, a low contrast stimulus in the weaker eye substantially reduced the response to a high contrast stimulus in the stronger eye. This effect was stronger than when the stimulus-eye pairings were reversed, consistent with unbalanced dynamic suppression between the eyes. Measuring neural responses using different methods leads to different conclusions about visual differences in individuals with impaired binocular vision. Both of the atypical suppression effects may relate to binocular perceptual deficits, e.g. in stereopsis, and we anticipate that these measures could be informative for monitoring the progress of treatments aimed at recovering binocular vision.

Indexed as

AdultAmblyopiaElectroencephalographyEvoked Potentials, VisualFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePhotic StimulationVision, BinocularYoung AdultDichopticfMRIInterocular suppressionSSVEPV1

Identifiers

PMID33503479
PMCPMC8063178
OpenAlexW3122198745

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.