ArticleeNeuro
Intrasession and Intersession Reproducibility of Artificial Scotoma pRF Mapping Results at Ultra-High Fields.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robust and reproducible population receptive field mapping in patients with retinal pathologies.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Biases in Volumetric Versus Surface Analyses in Population Receptive Field Mapping.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Comparison of Stimulus Types for Retinotopic Cortical Mapping of Macular Disease.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) combined with population receptive field (pRF) mapping allows for associating positions on the visual cortex to areas on the visual field. Apart from applications in healthy subjects, this method can also be used to examine dysfunctions in patients suffering from partial visual field losses. While such objective measurement of visual deficits (scotoma) is of great importance for, e.g., longitudinal studies addressing treatment effects, it requires a thorough assessment of accuracy and reproducibility of the results obtained. In this study, we quantified the reproducibility of pRF mapping results within and across sessions in case of central visual field loss in a group of 15 human subjects. We simulated scotoma by masking a central area of 2° radius from stimulation to establish ground-truth conditions. This study was performed on a 7T ultra-high field MRI scanner for increased sensitivity. We found excellent intrasession and intersession reproducibility for the pRF center position (Spearman correlation coefficients for
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.