Our results suggested that neither the amplitude nor the receptive field size present intereye differences and therefore cannot explain the different roles of the sighting dominant and the nondominant eyes.
Binocular vision, as compared to monocular, resulted in amplitude increase by a factor of approximately 1.2, while in most cases, receptive field sizes were similar, suggesting increased binocular response intensity as the basis for the binocular summation phenomenon.
Despite no clear differences in pRF size, one should keep in mind that small differences may exist but are obscured by data variability or methodological limitations. For the former, our relatively small sample size could have masked differences among conditions, but given the 95% confidence intervals for pRF size, any masked effects must be very subtle. With respect to the methodology used, spatial resolution of the fMRI, limited by voxel size (2.5 mm isotropic), may obscure size effects. However, using the model, we are not looking at the single neuron level but at the population. On that level of resolution, significant differences, if existing, would have emerged.