Cargando…

Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI

Population receptive field (pRF) mapping is a widely used approach to measuring aggregate human visual receptive field properties by recording non-invasive signals using functional MRI. Despite growing interest, no study to date has systematically investigated the effects of different stimulus confi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alvarez, Ivan, de Haas, Benjamin, Clark, Chris A., Rees, Geraint, Schwarzkopf, D. Samuel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25750620
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00096
_version_ 1782358352968286208
author Alvarez, Ivan
de Haas, Benjamin
Clark, Chris A.
Rees, Geraint
Schwarzkopf, D. Samuel
author_facet Alvarez, Ivan
de Haas, Benjamin
Clark, Chris A.
Rees, Geraint
Schwarzkopf, D. Samuel
author_sort Alvarez, Ivan
collection PubMed
description Population receptive field (pRF) mapping is a widely used approach to measuring aggregate human visual receptive field properties by recording non-invasive signals using functional MRI. Despite growing interest, no study to date has systematically investigated the effects of different stimulus configurations on pRF estimates from human visual cortex. Here we compared the effects of three different stimulus configurations on a model-based approach to pRF estimation: size-invariant bars and eccentricity-scaled bars defined in Cartesian coordinates and traveling along the cardinal axes, and a novel simultaneous “wedge and ring” stimulus defined in polar coordinates, systematically covering polar and eccentricity axes. We found that the presence or absence of eccentricity scaling had a significant effect on goodness of fit and pRF size estimates. Further, variability in pRF size estimates was directly influenced by stimulus configuration, particularly for higher visual areas including V5/MT+. Finally, we compared eccentricity estimation between phase-encoded and model-based pRF approaches. We observed a tendency for more peripheral eccentricity estimates using phase-encoded methods, independent of stimulus size. We conclude that both eccentricity scaling and polar rather than Cartesian stimulus configuration are important considerations for optimal experimental design in pRF mapping. While all stimulus configurations produce adequate estimates, simultaneous wedge and ring stimulation produced higher fit reliability, with a significant advantage in reduced acquisition time.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4335485
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43354852015-03-06 Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI Alvarez, Ivan de Haas, Benjamin Clark, Chris A. Rees, Geraint Schwarzkopf, D. Samuel Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Population receptive field (pRF) mapping is a widely used approach to measuring aggregate human visual receptive field properties by recording non-invasive signals using functional MRI. Despite growing interest, no study to date has systematically investigated the effects of different stimulus configurations on pRF estimates from human visual cortex. Here we compared the effects of three different stimulus configurations on a model-based approach to pRF estimation: size-invariant bars and eccentricity-scaled bars defined in Cartesian coordinates and traveling along the cardinal axes, and a novel simultaneous “wedge and ring” stimulus defined in polar coordinates, systematically covering polar and eccentricity axes. We found that the presence or absence of eccentricity scaling had a significant effect on goodness of fit and pRF size estimates. Further, variability in pRF size estimates was directly influenced by stimulus configuration, particularly for higher visual areas including V5/MT+. Finally, we compared eccentricity estimation between phase-encoded and model-based pRF approaches. We observed a tendency for more peripheral eccentricity estimates using phase-encoded methods, independent of stimulus size. We conclude that both eccentricity scaling and polar rather than Cartesian stimulus configuration are important considerations for optimal experimental design in pRF mapping. While all stimulus configurations produce adequate estimates, simultaneous wedge and ring stimulation produced higher fit reliability, with a significant advantage in reduced acquisition time. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-02-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4335485/ /pubmed/25750620 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00096 Text en Copyright © 2015 Alvarez, de Haas, Clark, Rees and Schwarzkopf. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Alvarez, Ivan
de Haas, Benjamin
Clark, Chris A.
Rees, Geraint
Schwarzkopf, D. Samuel
Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI
title Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI
title_full Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI
title_fullStr Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI
title_full_unstemmed Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI
title_short Comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fMRI
title_sort comparing different stimulus configurations for population receptive field mapping in human fmri
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25750620
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00096
work_keys_str_mv AT alvarezivan comparingdifferentstimulusconfigurationsforpopulationreceptivefieldmappinginhumanfmri
AT dehaasbenjamin comparingdifferentstimulusconfigurationsforpopulationreceptivefieldmappinginhumanfmri
AT clarkchrisa comparingdifferentstimulusconfigurationsforpopulationreceptivefieldmappinginhumanfmri
AT reesgeraint comparingdifferentstimulusconfigurationsforpopulationreceptivefieldmappinginhumanfmri
AT schwarzkopfdsamuel comparingdifferentstimulusconfigurationsforpopulationreceptivefieldmappinginhumanfmri