ArticleHuman brain mapping2025
Biases in Volumetric Versus Surface Analyses in Population Receptive Field Mapping.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human retinotopic mapping: From empirical to computational models of retinotopy.Journal of vision · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Population receptive field (pRF) mapping is a quantitative functional MRI (fMRI) analysis method that links visual field positions with specific locations in the visual cortex. A common preprocessing step in pRF analyses involves projecting volumetric fMRI data onto the cortical surface, typically leading to upsampling of the data. This process may introduce biases in the resulting pRF parameters. Using publicly available analysis containers, we compared pRF maps generated from the original volumetric with those from upsampled surface data. Our results show substantial increases in pRF coverage in the central visual field of upsampled datasets. These effects were consistent across early visual cortex areas V1-3. Further analysis indicates that this bias is primarily driven by the nonlinear relationship between cortical distance and visual field eccentricity, known as cortical magnification. Our results underscore the importance of understanding and addressing biases introduced by processing steps to ensure accurate interpretation of pRF mapping data, particularly in cross-study comparisons.
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.