September 2011
Volume 11, Issue 11
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2011
Multi-focal and phase-encoded retinotopy compared
Author Affiliations
  • Omar H. Butt
    Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania
  • Noah C. Benson
    Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania
    Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania
  • Ritobrato Datta
    Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania
  • David H. Brainard
    Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania
  • Geoffrey K. Aguirre
    Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania
Journal of Vision September 2011, Vol.11, 1069. doi:10.1167/11.11.1069
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Omar H. Butt, Noah C. Benson, Ritobrato Datta, David H. Brainard, Geoffrey K. Aguirre; Multi-focal and phase-encoded retinotopy compared. Journal of Vision 2011;11(11):1069. doi: 10.1167/11.11.1069.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Phase encoded (PE) retinotopic mapping stimuli are traveling wedges and rings while multi-focal (MF) stimulation divides visual space into discrete regions driven by a set of pseudorandom sequences (S Vanni, 2005. Neuroimage 27:95–105). Simulations of the BOLD fMRI system predict that MF and PE approaches should have similar statistical power, and studies have shown comparable qualitative results in area V1. How MF mapping quantitatively compares to the PE approach, however, has not been examined empirically.

We performed retinotopic mapping (RM) with BOLD fMRI (6 scans, 120 TRs, TR = 3, 3 mm voxels, at 3 Tesla) upon 10 subjects using both PE and MF methods. Quadratic residue sequences defined stimulation (5 Hz flicker) in 6 second intervals for the 48 MF sectors, and prohibited simultaneous activation of adjacent sectors. PE were coherent wedges and rings of sectors that traveled every 6 seconds. Eccentricity and polar angle values from each subject were combined within an anatomical V1 region defined by registration to a spherical atlas of cortical topology (Hinds et al 2008). We computed the correlations of each individual's map with a template derived from the data for the remaining nine subjects. We averaged these correlations as a measure of the reliability of each method.

12 minutes of PE scanning produced an average correlation for polar angle similar to 24 minutes of MF scanning (PE 0.51 ± 0.1sd vs MF 0.47 ± 0.14sd); 12 minutes of MF scanning produced significantly poorer results (0.26 ± 0.30sd), with discontinuities in the retinotopic map.

Despite having equivalent predicted statistical power, MF mapping was empirically half as powerful as PE approaches within area V1. Although adjacent sectors were never simultaneously illuminated, lateral inhibition may nonetheless contribute to this effect. More generally, MF presentations appear similar to visual noise and may be a suboptimal cortical stimulus.

NIH Grants RO1 EY10016, PA Dept Health CURE 2010-06-01. 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×