ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Linking retinal sampling in neural encoding models to temporal profiles of visual processing in humans.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. 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.
- Restorative and regenerative therapies for vision loss.Eye (London, England) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retinotopic tuning of neural populations is a key organizing principle of human visual cortex. However, state-of-the-art models that predict neural recordings based on task-optimized Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) do not take this retinotopic organization into account. Furthermore, while retinotopic tuning in visual cortex has been studied extensively using functional magnetic resonance imaging, the temporal dynamics of processing information from distinct parts of the visual field are less well understood. Here, we reveal distinct temporal profiles for foveal and peripheral visual information processing by implementing multiple spatial sampling strategies on feature maps of CNNs into encoding models that predict human electroencephalography (EEG) responses. Using large, high-quality natural scene images, we show that processing of peripheral information precedes that of foveally sampled information. This temporal difference is best modeled when applying a differential spatial transform to CNN feature maps that is derived from empirical measurements of human retinal ganglion cells. We directly confirm this temporal difference experimentally by mutually exclusive stimulation of foveal and peripheral visual field regions. Last, we introduce a novel, data-driven method of recovering visual field information from neural data, highlighting and quantifying spatial, retinotopic information contained in temporally specific EEG recordings. Together, these results provide novel neural evidence for a temporal coarse-to-fine visual processing hierarchy in the processing of natural images that is directly linked to distinct spatial information sampling. Aligning the spatial sampling of humans and CNN encoding models not only improves predictions of neural responses but also demonstrates that EEG recordings contain a significant amount of temporally encoded retinotopic information. We make our large-scale EEG dataset including high-resolution natural scene images publicly available to enable future research into naturalistic visual processing.
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.