Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42826108›Full record

ArticleeLife2026

Mapping human visual contrast sensitivity and vision loss across the visual field with model-based fMRI.

Hugo T Chow-Wing-Bom, Matteo Lisi, Noah C Benson, Freya Lygo-Frett, Patrick Yu-Wai-Man, Frederic Dick, Roni O Maimon-Mor, Tessa M Dekker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2026. 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. Article
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

8 authors.

Hugo T Chow-Wing-BomInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3348-3005
Matteo LisiDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Noah C BensoneScience Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2365-8265
Freya Lygo-FrettInstitute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, London, United Kingdom.
Patrick Yu-Wai-ManInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Frederic DickBirkbeck/UCL Centre for NeuroImaging, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2933-3912
Roni O Maimon-MorInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5262-9976
Tessa M DekkerInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3616-2859

Funding

Moorfields Eye Charity PhD Studentship GR001315Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 10.35802/306332
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral vision is crucial for daily activities and quality of life, yet traditional measures of visual function like visual acuity primarily assess central vision. Visual field tests can evaluate peripheral vision but require extended focus and precise fixation, often challenging for patients with severe sight loss. Functional MRI (fMRI) with population receptive field (pRF) mapping offers a non-invasive way to map scotomas but relies on single contrast levels and accurate fixation. We developed an fMRI-based approach to measure contrast sensitivity across the visual field without requiring precise fixation. Combining large-field stimulation with varying spatial frequencies and contrast levels, and either pRF mapping or a structure-based retinotopic atlas, we modeled contrast sensitivity in the primary visual cortex (V1) over a large (40 deg) expanse of the visual field. In seven normally sighted participants, we characterized differences in V1 sensitivity across eccentricities and visual quadrants, finding reliable and reproducible patterns at individual and session levels. To test robustness to fixation variability, we investigated how varying levels of eye movement affected V1 sensitivity patterns in two participants: cortical sensitivity patterns were largely preserved despite eye movements, particularly at low spatial frequencies. This suggests our approach can accommodate several degrees of fixation instability, making it suitable for populations with unstable or biased fixation for whom visual field maps are harder to acquire behaviorally (e.g., patients with dense central scotoma or strabismus). Additionally, our method effectively visualized simulated and disease-linked sensitivity loss at the cortical level. Crucially, these results could be largely recovered using the structure-based retinotopic atlas, eliminating the need for pRF mapping and precise fixation, although with reduced sensitivity. This approach, integrating large-field stimulation with a retinotopic atlas, offers a promising tool for monitoring vision loss and recovery across a range of visual impairments, addressing a significant challenge in current clinical assessments.

Indexed as

Brain MappingContrast SensitivityMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrimary Visual CortexVisual FieldsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedScotomaYoung Adultcontrast sensitivitycortical functionhumanmodel-based fMRIneuroscienceprimary visual cortexvisual field mappingvisual loss detection

Identifiers

PMID42826108
PMCPMC13633074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.