6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Relationship between Cortical Magnification Factor and Population Receptive Field Size in Human Visual Cortex: Constancies in Cortical Architecture

      research-article
      ,
      The Journal of Neuroscience
      Society for Neuroscience

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Receptive field (RF) sizes and cortical magnification factor (CMF) are fundamental organization properties of the visual cortex. At increasing visual eccentricity, RF sizes increase and CMF decreases. A relationship between RF size and CMF suggests constancies in cortical architecture, as their product, the cortical representation of an RF (point image), may be constant. Previous animal neurophysiology studies of this question yield conflicting results. Here, we use fMRI to determine the relationship between the population RF (pRF) and CMF in humans. In average and individual data, the product of CMF and pRF size, the population point image, is near constant, decreasing slightly with eccentricity in V1. Interhemisphere and subject variations in CMF, pRF size, and V1 surface area are correlated, and the population point image varies less than these properties. These results suggest a V1 cortical processing architecture of approximately constant size between humans. Up the visual hierarchy, to V2, V3, hV4, and LO1, the population point image decreases with eccentricity, and both the absolute values and rate of change increase. PRF sizes increase between visual areas and with eccentricity, but when expressed in V1 cortical surface area (i.e., corticocortical pRFs), they are constant across eccentricity in V2/V3. Thus, V2/V3, and to some degree hV4, sample from a constant extent of V1. This may explain population point image changes in later areas. Consequently, the constant factor determining pRF size may not be the relationship to the local CMF, but rather pRF sizes and CMFs in visual areas from which the pRF samples.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Neurosci
          J. Neurosci
          jneuro
          jneurosci
          J. Neurosci
          The Journal of Neuroscience
          Society for Neuroscience
          0270-6474
          1529-2401
          21 September 2011
          : 31
          : 38
          : 13604-13612
          Affiliations
          [1]Helmholtz Institute, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands
          Author notes
          Correspondence should be addressed to either Ben M. Harvey or Serge O. Dumoulin, Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands. b.m.harvey@ 123456uu.nl or s.o.dumoulin@ 123456uu.nl

          Author contributions: B.M.H. and S.O.D. designed research; B.M.H. and S.O.D. performed research; B.M.H. and S.O.D. analyzed data; B.M.H. and S.O.D. wrote the paper.

          Article
          PMC6623292 PMC6623292 6623292 3722049
          10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2572-11.2011
          6623292
          21940451
          b05739c6-b6e4-4680-ab56-b1901b8f53b2
          Copyright © 2011 the authors 0270-6474/11/3113604-09$15.00/0
          History
          : 24 May 2011
          : 19 July 2011
          : 28 July 2011
          Categories
          Articles
          Behavioral/Systems/Cognitive

          Comments

          Comment on this article