Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39854138›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2025

Biases in Volumetric Versus Surface Analyses in Population Receptive Field Mapping.

David Linhardt, Michael Woletz, Pedro M Paz-Alonso, Christian Windischberger, Garikoitz Lerma-Usabiaga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

5 authors.

David LinhardtHigh Field MR Center, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8730-9793
Michael WoletzHigh Field MR Center, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9200-4468
Pedro M Paz-AlonsoBCBL - Basque Center on Cognition Brain and Language, Donostia - San Sebastián, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0325-9304
Christian WindischbergerHigh Field MR Center, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9944-0190
Garikoitz Lerma-UsabiagaBCBL - Basque Center on Cognition Brain and Language, Donostia - San Sebastián, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9800-4816

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación of Spain Severo Ochoa excellence accreditation CEX2020-0010Austrian Science Fund 10.55776/P35583Austrian Science Fund 10.55776/PAT8722623Diputacion Foral de Gipuzkoa 2024-CIE4-000042-01European Molecular Biology Organization Scientific Exchange Grant Number 9415Eusko Jaurlaritza BERC 2022-2025 programEusko Jaurlaritza KK-2023/00090Eusko Jaurlaritza PIBA-2021-1-0003Eusko Jaurlaritza PIBA_2022_1_0014Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain CEX2020-001010/AEI/10.13039/50110001103 3Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain IJC2020-042887-IMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain PID2021-123574NB-I00Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain PID2021- 123577NA-I00Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain RYC2022-035502-I
6 · The paper itself

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

Brain MappingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingVisual CortexVisual FieldsAdultBiasFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultcortical magnificationfMRIpRF mappingretinotopyvisual cortex

Identifiers

PMID39854138
PMCPMC11758450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.