Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Results of the one subject where full-field (left) and artificial scotoma runs (right) were acquired. The top row shows coverage plots where each dot corresponds to a detected pRF center, while the bottom row shows eccentricity values overlaid to the visual cortex surface. The circles shown in the eccentricity color wheel match the circles of the coverage plots (2.3°, 4.7°, 7.0°).
- Figure 2.
Comparison of scotoma mapping results (coverage maps and eccentricity maps overlaid to the cortical surface) across runs and sessions in a typical subject. Blank central areas in the coverage correspond to the foveal artificial scotoma (2° radius).
- Figure 3.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient for pRF center position (eccentricity and polar angle) as well as pRF size. Different columns correspond to the different run comparisons (columns 1 and 2, intrasession; columns 3–5, intersession).
- Figure 4.
Reproducibility of the original Cartesian fitting parameters x and y. While correlation coefficients vary between eccentricity and polar angle parameters, they are remarkably similar for Cartesian parameters, for both intrasession and intersession comparisons.
- Figure 5.
Change of reproducibility across voxel inclusion thresholds (variance explained). The plot shows Spearman’s correlation coefficients averaged across all single-run comparisons (intersession and intrasession conditions) with 95% confidence interval for the three pRF mapping parameters eccentricity, polar angle and pRF size.
- Figure 6.
Comparison between the standard Gaussian model, the Gaussian model without HRF fit and nonlinear model fitting (left, middle, right results in each category). The values shown are Spearman’s correlation coefficient for all run comparisons and the three mapping parameters eccentricity, polar angle and pRF size.
- Figure 7.
Scotoma estimation curves calculated as the relative difference of pRF center density between scotoma and reference stimulation. Every subplot shows results for all subjects (thin lines) and mean across subjects (bold red line) for single run or averaged analyses. The scotoma is indicated by the dark gray area below 2° radius. Values below zero (horizontal gray line) indicate a relative surplus of pRF centers in the scotoma condition, while values above indicate higher pRF center density in the reference data set. The scotoma detection border at 0.1 is indicated by a horizontal green line.
- Figure 8.
Estimated scotoma border values for the different single-run or average results. The horizontal thin gray lines connect the same subject’s results throughout all session results. Extended Data Figure 8-1 shows results for the other two tested pRF models.
Tables
- Table 1
Mean Spearman’s correlation coefficients averaged across all 15 subjects for the different intrasession and intersession conditions and pRF parameters
Correlation
coefficientsSession 1
run 1 vs run 2Session 2
run 1 vs run 2Run 1
session 1 vs session 2Run 2
session 1 vs session 2Combined
session 1 vs session 2Eccentricity 0.916 0.903 0.879 0.890 0.886 Polar angle 0.989 0.988 0.986 0.986 0.988 pRF size 0.411 0.399 0.353 0.351 0.405 x 0.970 0.967 0.960 0.957 0.958 y 0.969 0.966 0.958 0.959 0.961 Simulation results, verifying the systematic shift of correlation values when switching from cartesian to polar coordinates are shown in Extended Data Table 1-1.
- Table 2
Mean differences within one voxel per parameter averaged across all 15 subjects for the different intrasession and intersession conditions and pRF parameters
Differences
(SEM; °)Session 1
run 1 vs run 2Session 2
run 1 vs run 2Run 1
session 1 vs session 2Run 2
session 1 vs session 2Combined
session 1 vs session 2Eccentricity 0.89 (0.08) 1.02 (0.10) 1.08 (0.09) 1.05 (0.11) 0.98 (0.08) Polar angle 9.26 (1.48) 9.89 (1.46) 10.86 (1.41) 10.93 (1.13) 9.83 (0.85) pRF size 0.53 (0.04) 0.58 (0.06) 0.61 (0.06) 0.57 (0.05) 0.54 (0.04) x 0.77 (0.08) 0.90 (0.10) 0.92 (0.07) 0.94 (0.10) 0.83 (0.05) y 0.76 (0.08) 0.84 (0.09) 0.93 (0.08) 0.88 (0.09) 0.84 (0.08) All values in degrees visual angle. Values in parentheses show the SEM across subjects.
- Table 3
Similar to Table 2 but limited to voxels with eccentricity values below 7° visual angle, i.e., within the area stimulated
Differences
(SEM; °)Session 1
run 1 vs run 2Session 2
run 1 vs run 2Run 1
session 1 vs session 2Run 2
session 1 vs session 2Combined
session 1 vs session 2Eccentricity 0.51 (0.04) 0.57 (0.05) 0.63 (0.04) 0.63 (0.06) 0.57 (0.04) Polar angle 9.33 (1.07) 10.13 (1.27) 11.48 (1.36) 11.11 (1.01) 9.92 (0.75) pRF size 0.46 (0.04) 0.48 (0.04) 0.53 (0.06) 0.48 (0.04) 0.46 (0.03) x 0.50 (0.04) 0.58 (0.05) 0.63 (0.05) 0.64 (0.06) 0.55 (0.03) y 0.49 (0.04) 0.53 (0.05) 0.62 (0.05) 0.59 (0.06) 0.55 (0.04) All values in degrees (°). Values in parentheses show the SEM across subjects.
- Table 4
Scotoma borders estimated from averaged across subjects classification curves for all runs
Analysis Average scotoma
border (° radius)Mean difference
(° radius)Session 1, run 1 2.01 0.25 Session 1, run 2 2.00 0.12 Session 2, run 1 2.19 0.31 Session 2, run 2 2.10 0.36 Session 1, averaged 1.92 0.16 Session 2, averaged 2.04 0.26 The second column reports the mean difference from the ground truth scotoma border across subjects
Extended Data Figure 3-1
Spearman’s correlation coefficient for pRF center position (eccentricity and polar angle) as well as pRF size. Different columns correspond to the different run comparisons (columns 1 and 2, intrasession; columns 3–5, intersession). Data shown here originates from the five excluded subjects. Download Figure 3-1, EPS file.
Extended Data Table 1-1
Spearman’s correlation coefficients resulting from 1000 repetitions of pRF center position on a Cartesian grid for the full-field and scotoma condition. It can be seen that correlation values for radius are lower than polar angle, while Cartesian variables result in similar correlation values. The presence of a central scotoma increased the differences between the two coordinate systems. Download Table 1-1, DOCX file.
Extended Data Figure 8-1
Estimated scotoma border for all subjects and measured runs. In contrast to Figure 8, where scotoma borders estimated from the standard Gaussian modelling are reported, the comparison models are shown: (A) Gaussian model without HRF fit; (B) fit considering spatial nonlinearities. Download Figure 8-1, EPS file.
In this issue
