ArticleNeuroscience insights2024
Visual Evoked Potential Effects on Magnocellular and Parvocellular Pathways from Athletes After Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries.
Article in Neuroscience insights, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study is to examine magnocellular and parvocellular pathways differentiation based on checkerboard spatial frequency stimulation between normal and visually impaired individuals from athletes with mild traumatic brain injury. Purpose: Athletes who exhibited photophobia, and blurriness were subjected to 5 spatial frequency stimuli presented to the left and right eye, and both eyes simultaneously to determine the type of receptive field loss deprecation based on sports-related brain trauma. Methods: Checkerboard stimulation enables the measurement between 2 visual processing pathways and enables the determination of the integrity of visual processing through visual evoked potentials (VEPs). Conclusion: The principal results reflect P1 responses demonstrated distinct changes in amplitude from mTBI (>5 µV) from normal cohorts concluding higher P1 amplitude of the VEP in mTBI cohorts had increased after injury. Latency in P1 was not as distinct as amplitude changes. Our major conclusion is that most of the mTBI cohort exhibited receptive field loss across all the patients appears to be magnocellular process deprecation due to frequent instances of 8 × 8 and 16 × 16 spatial frequencies input as it relates to amplitude and latency output.
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.