Literature DB >> 29155078

Radial asymmetries in population receptive field size and cortical magnification factor in early visual cortex.

Maria Fatima Silva1, Jan W Brascamp2, Sónia Ferreira1, Miguel Castelo-Branco3, Serge O Dumoulin4, Ben M Harvey5.   

Abstract

Human visual cortex does not represent the whole visual field with the same detail. Changes in receptive field size, population receptive field (pRF) size and cortical magnification factor (CMF) with eccentricity are well established, and associated with changes in visual acuity with eccentricity. Visual acuity also changes across polar angle. However, it remains unclear how RF size, pRF size and CMF change across polar angle. Here, we examine differences in pRF size and CMF across polar angle in V1, V2 and V3 using pRF modeling of human fMRI data. In these visual field maps, we find smaller pRFs and larger CMFs in horizontal (left and right) than vertical (upper and lower) visual field quadrants. Differences increase with eccentricity, approximately in proportion to average pRF size and CMF. Similarly, we find larger CMFs in the lower than upper quadrant, and again differences increase with eccentricity. However, pRF size differences between lower and upper quadrants change direction with eccentricity. Finally, we find slightly smaller pRFs in the left than right quadrants of V2 and V3, though this difference is very small, and we find no differences in V1 and no differences in CMF. Moreover, differences in pRF size and CMF vary gradually with polar angle and are not limited to the meridians or visual field map discontinuities. PRF size and CMF differences do not consistently follow patterns of cortical curvature, despite the link between cortical curvature and polar angle in V1. Thus, the early human visual cortex has a radially asymmetric representation of the visual field. These asymmetries may underlie consistent reports of asymmetries in perceptual abilities.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Asymmetry; Cortical magnification factor (CMF); Polar angle; Population receptive field (pRF); Visual cortex

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29155078     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroimage        ISSN: 1053-8119            Impact factor:   6.556


  19 in total

1.  Quantitative examination of an unconventional form of the filled-space illusion.

Authors:  Aleksandr Bulatov; Natalija Bulatova; Edgaras Diržius
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Spatial sampling in human visual cortex is modulated by both spatial and feature-based attention.

Authors:  Daniel Marten van Es; Jan Theeuwes; Tomas Knapen
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  Non-neural factors influencing BOLD response magnitudes within individual subjects.

Authors:  Jan W Kurzawski; Omer Faruk Gulban; Keith Jamison; Jonathan Winawer; Kendrick Kay
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 6.709

4.  Severe distortion in the representation of foveal visual image locations in short-term memory.

Authors:  Konstantin F Willeke; Araceli R Cardenas; Joachim Bellet; Ziad M Hafed
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 12.779

5.  Visual field asymmetries in numerosity processing.

Authors:  Ramakrishna Chakravarthi; Danai Papadaki; Jan Krajnik
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 2.157

6.  Differential Sampling of Visual Space in Ventral and Dorsal Early Visual Cortex.

Authors:  Edward H Silson; Richard C Reynolds; Dwight J Kravitz; Chris I Baker
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Population spatial frequency tuning in human early visual cortex.

Authors:  Sara Aghajari; Louis N Vinke; Sam Ling
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Modulating the global orientation bias of the visual system changes population receptive field elongations.

Authors:  Christian Merkel; Jens-Max Hopf; Mircea Ariel Schoenfeld
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Modeling visual performance differences 'around' the visual field: A computational observer approach.

Authors:  Eline R Kupers; Marisa Carrasco; Jonathan Winawer
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 4.475

10.  Size Perception Biases Are Temporally Stable and Vary Consistently Between Visual Field Meridians.

Authors:  Dietrich S Schwarzkopf
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2019-09-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.