Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34509622›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

A population receptive field model of the magnetoencephalography response.

Eline R Kupers, Akhil Edadan, Noah C Benson, Wietske Zuiderbaan, Maartje C de Jong, Serge O Dumoulin, Jonathan Winawer

Abstract 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Modeling neural contrast sensitivity functions in human visual cortex.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Eline R KupersDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, United States; Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY 10003, United States; Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, United States. Electronic address: eline.kupers@nyu.edu.
Akhil EdadanSpinoza Center for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam 1105 BK, the Netherlands; Department of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CS, the Netherlands.
Noah C BensonDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, United States; Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY 10003, United States; Sciences Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, United States.
Wietske ZuiderbaanSpinoza Center for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam 1105 BK, the Netherlands.
Maartje C de JongSpinoza Center for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam 1105 BK, the Netherlands; Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1001 NK, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Brain and Cognition (ABC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1001 NK, the Netherlands.
Serge O DumoulinSpinoza Center for Neuroimaging, Amsterdam 1105 BK, the Netherlands; Department of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CS, the Netherlands; Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam 1081 BT, the Netherlands.
Jonathan WinawerDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, United States; Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY 10003, United States.

Funding

Development and validation of empirical models of the neuronal population activity underlying non-invasive human brain measurementsR01MH111417 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT · PI DEVINSKY, ORRIN, DIJKHUIZEN, RICK M · 2016 to 2020
$4.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational models which predict the neurophysiological response from experimental stimuli have played an important role in human neuroimaging. One type of computational model, the population receptive field (pRF), has been used to describe cortical responses at the millimeter scale using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electrocorticography (ECoG). However, pRF models are not widely used for non-invasive electromagnetic field measurements (EEG/MEG), because individual sensors pool responses originating from several centimeter of cortex, containing neural populations with widely varying spatial tuning. Here, we introduce a forward-modeling approach in which pRFs estimated from fMRI data are used to predict MEG sensor responses. Subjects viewed contrast-reversing bar stimuli sweeping across the visual field in separate fMRI and MEG sessions. Individual subject's pRFs were modeled on the cortical surface at the millimeter scale using the fMRI data. We then predicted cortical time series and projected these predictions to MEG sensors using a biophysical MEG forward model, accounting for the pooling across cortex. We compared the predicted MEG responses to observed visually evoked steady-state responses measured in the MEG session. We found that pRF parameters estimated by fMRI could explain a substantial fraction of the variance in steady-state MEG sensor responses (up to 60% in individual sensors). Control analyses in which we artificially perturbed either pRF size or pRF position reduced MEG prediction accuracy, indicating that MEG data are sensitive to pRF properties derived from fMRI. Our model provides a quantitative approach to link fMRI and MEG measurements, thereby enabling advances in our understanding of spatiotemporal dynamics in human visual field maps.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationAdultEvoked PotentialsFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetoencephalographyMaleMiddle AgedResearch DesignVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID34509622
PMCPMC8631249

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.