Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The Human Visual Claustrum Responses to Physical Stimulus Properties and Subjective Content During Movie Viewing.

Human brain mapping·2026
Same author

How Standardized Is Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Treatment for Depression? Large-Cohort Modeling Reveals Systematic Dosimetric Variability.

Psychotherapy and psychosomatics·2026
Same author

Robust and reproducible population receptive field mapping in patients with retinal pathologies.

Eye (London, England)·2026
Same author

Polygonal Area of Retinal Pigment Epithelium Avulsion Following Retinal Cryotherapy for Retinal Detachment.

Case reports in ophthalmological medicine·2026
Same author

Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment Associated With a Retinal Tear Overlying a Choroidal Nevus.

Case reports in ophthalmological medicine·2026
Same author

Multicenter Natural History Study and Long-Term Cochlear Implant Outcomes in Usher Syndrome Subtypes.

Ear and hearing·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 2, 2025

Topographical Estimation of Visual Population Receptive Fields by fMRI
06:02

Topographical Estimation of Visual Population Receptive Fields by fMRI

Published on: February 3, 2015

9.4K

Combining stimulus types for improved coverage in population receptive field mapping.

David Linhardt1, Maximilian Pawloff2, Allan Hummer1

  • 1High Field MR Center, Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Neuroimage
|June 11, 2021
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Different visual stimuli used in retinotopy experiments significantly impact population receptive field (pRF) mapping results. Combining data from bar and wedge/ring stimuli can improve visual field coverage and mapping accuracy.

Keywords:
Coverage mapRetinotopyVisual stimulifMRIpRF mapping

More Related Videos

Mapping Inhibitory Neuronal Circuits by Laser Scanning Photostimulation
09:50

Mapping Inhibitory Neuronal Circuits by Laser Scanning Photostimulation

Published on: October 6, 2011

17.4K
Automated Multimodal Stimulation and Simultaneous Neuronal Recording from Multiple Small Organisms
08:28

Automated Multimodal Stimulation and Simultaneous Neuronal Recording from Multiple Small Organisms

Published on: March 3, 2023

1.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 2, 2025

Topographical Estimation of Visual Population Receptive Fields by fMRI
06:02

Topographical Estimation of Visual Population Receptive Fields by fMRI

Published on: February 3, 2015

9.4K
Mapping Inhibitory Neuronal Circuits by Laser Scanning Photostimulation
09:50

Mapping Inhibitory Neuronal Circuits by Laser Scanning Photostimulation

Published on: October 6, 2011

17.4K
Automated Multimodal Stimulation and Simultaneous Neuronal Recording from Multiple Small Organisms
08:28

Automated Multimodal Stimulation and Simultaneous Neuronal Recording from Multiple Small Organisms

Published on: March 3, 2023

1.3K

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Visual Neuroscience
  • Neuroimaging

Background:

  • Population receptive field (pRF) mapping is crucial for assigning visual field regions to cortical areas.
  • Existing visual stimulation designs for pRF mapping have limitations in visual field coverage.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the efficacy of moving bars versus rotating wedges and expanding rings for pRF mapping.
  • To investigate how stimulus choice influences pRF center distribution, eccentricity, and size.
  • To explore methods for combining data from different stimulus types for enhanced mapping.

Main Methods:

  • Acquisition of high-resolution 7 Tesla functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data.
  • Comparison of pRF-based coverage maps generated using moving bar and wedge/ring stimuli.
  • Statistical analysis of pRF center distribution, eccentricity, and size differences.

Main Results:

  • Stimulus selection demonstrably biases the spatial distribution of pRF centers.
  • Wedge/ring stimuli yield systematically lower eccentricity values and smaller pRF sizes compared to bar stimuli.
  • Significantly higher pRF center density was observed in the central 2° visual field with wedge/ring stimuli.

Conclusions:

  • The choice of visual stimulus critically affects pRF mapping outcomes, influencing spatial distribution and quantitative measures.
  • Combining pRF data acquired with different visual stimulus patterns offers a promising strategy to overcome individual stimulus limitations and improve overall visual field mapping.
  • Further research should focus on optimizing combined-stimulus approaches for robust retinotopic mapping.