Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34789812›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Population receptive fields of human primary visual cortex organised as DC-balanced bandpass filters.

Daniel Gramm Kristensen, Kristian Sandberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Daniel Gramm KristensenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus University, Nørrebrogade 44, Building 1A, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. dgramm@cfin.au.dk.
Kristian SandbergDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Center of Functionally Integrative Neuroscience, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus University, Nørrebrogade 44, Building 1A, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Funding

European Cooperation in Science and Technology CA18106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The response to visual stimulation of population receptive fields (pRF) in the human visual cortex has been modelled with a Difference of Gaussians model, yet many aspects of their organisation remain poorly understood. Here, we examined the mathematical basis and signal-processing properties of this model and argue that the DC-balanced Difference of Gaussians (DoG) holds a number of advantages over a DC-biased DoG. Through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) pRF mapping, we compared performance of DC-balanced and DC-biased models in human primary visual cortex and found that when model complexity is taken into account, the DC-balanced model is preferred. Finally, we present evidence indicating that the BOLD signal DC offset contains information related to the processing of visual stimuli. Taken together, the results indicate that V1 pRFs are at least frequently organised in the exact constellation that allows them to function as bandpass filters, which makes the separation of stimulus contrast and luminance possible. We further speculate that if the DoG models stimulus contrast, the DC offset may reflect stimulus luminance. These findings suggest that it may be possible to separate contrast and luminance processing in fMRI experiments and this could lead to new insights on the haemodynamic response.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBrain MappingFemaleFunctional LateralityHealthy VolunteersHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleModels, TheoreticalNeuronsNormal DistributionPhotic StimulationPrimary Visual CortexVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID34789812
PMCPMC8599479

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.