Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36937669›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Visually evoked potentials (VEPs) across the visual field in hearing and deaf cats.

Thomas Mitzelfelt, Xiaohan Bao, Paisley Barnes, Stephen G Lomber

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas MitzelfeltDepartment of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Xiaohan BaoIntegrated Program in Neuroscience, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Paisley BarnesDepartment of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Stephen G LomberDepartment of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
McGill University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Congenitally deaf cats perform better on visual localization tasks than hearing cats, and this advantage has been attributed to the posterior auditory field. Successful visual localization requires both visual processing of the target and timely generation of an action to approach the target. Activation of auditory cortex in deaf subjects during visual localization in the peripheral visual field can occur either Methods: In this study, we recorded visually evoked potentials (VEPs) in response to a reversing checkerboard stimulus presented in the hemifield contralateral to the recorded hemisphere in both hearing and deaf cats under light anesthesia. Results: Although VEP amplitudes and latencies were systematically modulated by stimulus eccentricity, we found little evidence of changes in VEP in deaf cats that can explain their behavioral advantage. A statistical trend was observed, showing larger peak amplitudes and shorter peak latencies in deaf subjects for stimuli in the near- and mid-peripheral field. Additionally, latency of the P1 wave component had a larger inter-sweep variation in deaf subjects. Discussion: Our results suggested that cross-modal plasticity following deafness does not play a major part in cortical processing of the peripheral visual field when the "vision for action" system is not recruited.

Indexed as

cortical magnificationcross-modal plasticitydeafnessEEGhearing loss

Identifiers

PMID36937669
PMCPMC10020186
OpenAlexW4323045637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read1
measurements read23
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.