ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2023
Comparison of Stimulus Types for Retinotopic Cortical Mapping of Macular Disease.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping human visual contrast sensitivity and vision loss across the visual field with model-based fMRI.eLife · 2026Article
- Cortical response to transient and long-term visual field loss.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Retinotopic maps acquired using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provide a valuable adjunct in the assessment of macular function at the level of the visual cortex. The present study quantitatively assessed the performance of different visual stimulation approaches for mapping visual field coverage. Methods: Twelve patients with geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD) were examined using high-resolution ultra-high field fMRI (Siemens Magnetom 7T) and microperimetry (MP; Nidek MP-3). The population receptive field (pRF)-based coverage maps obtained with two different stimulus techniques (moving bars, and rotating wedges and expanding rings) were compared with the results of MP. Correspondence between MP and pRF mapping was quantified by calculating the simple matching coefficient (SMC). Results: Stimulus choice is shown to bias the spatial distribution of pRF centers and eccentricity values with pRF sizes obtained from wedge/ring or bar stimulation showing systematic differences. Wedge/ring stimulation results show a higher number of pRF centers in foveal areas and strongly reduced pRF sizes compared to bar stimulation runs. A statistical comparison shows significantly higher pRF center numbers in the foveal 2.5 degrees region of the visual field for wedge/ring compared to bar stimuli. However, these differences do not significantly influence SMC values when compared to MP (bar <2.5 degrees: 0.88 ± 0.13; bar >2.5 degrees: 0.88 ± 0.11; wedge/ring <2.5 degrees: 0.89 ± 0.12 wedge/ring; >2.5 degrees: 0.86 ± 0.10) for the peripheral visual field. Conclusions: Both visual stimulation designs examined can be applied successfully in patients with GA. Although the two designs show systematic differences in the distribution of pRF center locations, this variability has minimal impact on the SMC when compared to the MP outcome.
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.