ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Spatial Frequency Maps in Human Visual Cortex: A Replication and Extension.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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.
- Unpacking the V1 map: Differential covariation of preferred spatial frequency and cortical magnification across spatial dimensions.PLoS computational biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a step toward developing a model of human primary visual cortex, a recent study introduced a model of spatial frequency tuning in V1 (Broderick, Simoncelli, & Winawer, 2022). The model is compact, using just 9 parameters to predict BOLD response amplitude for locations across all of V1 as a function of stimulus orientation and spatial frequency. Here we replicated this analysis in a new dataset, the 'nsdsynthetic' supplement to the Natural Scenes Dataset (Allen et al., 2022), to assess generalization of model parameters. Furthermore, we extended the analyses to extrastriate maps V2 and V3. For each retinotopic map in the 8 NSD subjects, we fit the 9-parameter model. Despite many experimental differences between NSD and the original study, including stimulus size, experimental design, and MR field strength, there was good agreement in most model parameters. The dependence of preferred spatial frequency on eccentricity in V1 was similar between NSD and Broderick et al. Moreover, the effect of absolute stimulus orientation on spatial frequency maps was similar: higher preferred spatial frequency for horizontal and cardinal orientations compared to vertical and oblique orientations in both studies. The extension to extrastriate maps revealed that the biggest change in tuning between maps was in bandwidth: the bandwidth in spatial frequency tuning increased by 70% from V1 to V2 and 100% from V1 to V3, paralleling known increases in receptive field size. Together, the results show robust reproducibility and bring us closer to a systematic characterization of spatial encoding in the human visual system.
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.