For each subject, we extracted the mean pRF size from the tROI in both pre- and post-training conditions and conducted a paired-sample
t-test. Post-training pRF size was decreased significantly compared to pre-training pRF size,
t(14),
p = 0.005, Cohen's
d = 0.87. To minimize the effect of artifacts, we filtered the data by excluding pRF sizes with negative beta values. Simultaneously, we assessed the goodness of the fit and changes in polar angle and eccentricity within the tROI. The goodness of the fit worsened slightly after training (mean pre-training
R2 = 0.338, post-training
R2 = 0.317). A significant shift of eccentricity toward the fovea was observed (mean pre-training eccentricity = 7.05°, post-training eccentricity = 5.9°),
t(14),
p = 0.006, Cohen's
d = 0.84. Polar angle showed no significant changes after training (mean pre-training polar angle = 66.07°, post-training polar angle = 73.92°),
t(14),
p = 0.36, Cohen's
d = –0.24. A comparison of pRF size measures within the tROI for pre- and post-training conditions is presented in
Figure 5A, and the results indicate a significant reduction in the pRF size. At the same time, the estimated pRF centers shifted toward the fovea (
Figure 5B). We did not find any significant correlation between change in the extent of critical spacing (both radial and tangential directions) and pRF sizes,
r(15) = 0.198 and
p = 0.480 for the tangential direction, and
r(15) = 0.351 and
p = 0.200 for the radial direction.
To explore how training on the crowding task modulates neurons at the different visual cortex levels, we compared pRF sizes in dorsal and ventral V1 and V2. As mentioned earlier, voxels were binned in 0.5° bins and mapped against eccentricity (
Figure 6). rmANOVA with the factors ROI spatial location (ventral vs. dorsal), ROI (V1, V2), and training (pre-/post-) was conducted. Test results revealed a significant effect of ROI spatial location,
F(1, 17) = 78.87,
p < 0.001, partial η
2 = 0.823; ROI type,
F(1, 17) = 214.05,
p < 0.001, partial η
2 = 0.926; and training,
F(1, 17) = 8.7,
p = 0.009, partial η
2 = 0.339. The results of the paired-sample
t-tests demonstrated a significant change in mean pRF size for voxels belonging to vV2 (mean pre-training pRF size = 1.47°, post-training pRF size = 1.2°),
t(17),
p < 0.0000001, Cohen's
d = 0.14, and dV2 (mean pre-training pRF size = 1.15°, post-training pRF size = 1.04°),
t(17),
p = 0.009, Cohen's
d = 0.11). No significant change of the pRF sizes was observed in vV1 (mean pre-training pRF size = 0.93°, post-training pRFsize = 0.96°),
t(17),
p = 0.181, Cohen's
d = 0.1, or dV1 (mean pre-training pRF size = 0.94°, post-training pRF size = 1.04°),
t(17),
p = 0.06, Cohen's
d = 0.2. If anything, dV1 exhibited a slight increase of pRF sizes for large eccentricities, but this effect was not significant.
Although V2 exhibited a significant reduction in pRF sizes, the correlation coefficients between pRF sizes and critical spacing across subjects were not significant for both radial, r(15) = 0.243, p = 0.38 and r(15) = 0.118, p = 0.676, and tangential flanker configurations, r(15) = 0.268 and p = 0.33 for the radial direction, and r(15) = 0.021 and p = 0.94 flanker configurations. Similarly, no significant correlation was found between pRF sizes in vV1 and dV1 and critical spacing changes in both radial and tangential directions.