June 2022
Volume 63, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2022
Comparison of stimulus types for retinotopic cortical mapping of macular disease
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Maximilian Pawloff
    Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Wien, Austria
  • David Linhardt
    Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Wien, Austria
  • allan hummer
    Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Wien, Austria
  • Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth
    Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Wien, Austria
  • Christian Windischberger
    Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Wien, Austria
  • Markus Ritter
    Medizinische Universitat Wien, Wien, Wien, Austria
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Maximilian Pawloff None; David Linhardt None; allan hummer None; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth None; Christian Windischberger None; Markus Ritter None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2022, Vol.63, 4543 – F0457. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Maximilian Pawloff, David Linhardt, allan hummer, Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth, Christian Windischberger, Markus Ritter; Comparison of stimulus types for retinotopic cortical mapping of macular disease. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2022;63(7):4543 – F0457.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Retinotopic maps acquired by fMRI provide a valuable adjunct in the assessment of macular dysfunction at the level of the visual cortex. The present study quantitatively assesses the performance of different visual stimulation approaches for mapping visual field coverage.

Methods : Twelve patients with geographic atrophy (GA) secondary to age-related macular degeneration were examined using high-resolution 7 Tesla fMRI (Siemens Magnetom 7T[CW1] ) and microperimetry (MP, Nidek MP-3). We compared pRF-based coverage maps obtained with two stimulus variants (moving bars; rotating wedges and expanding rings) with the results of MP. Correspondence between MP and pRF mapping was quantified by calculating the simple matching coefficient (SMC).

Results : We find that stimulus choice biases the spatial distribution of pRF centres. In addition, eccentricity values and pRF sizes obtained from wedge/ring or bar stimulation runs show systematic differences. Wedge/ring stimulation results show lower eccentricity values and strongly reduced pRF sizes compared to bar stimulation runs. Statistical comparison shows significantly higher pRF centre numbers in the foveal 2.5° region of the visual field for wedge/ring compared to bar stimuli. However, these differences do not have an effect on SMC values when compared to MP (bar below 2.5° : 0,88 plusminus 0,13 bar above 2.5°: 0,88 plusminus 0,11; wedge/ring below 2.5°: 0,89 plusminus 0,12 wedge/ring above 2.5° 0,86 plusminus 0,10) for the peripheral visual field.

Conclusions : Both visual stimulation designs examined in this study can be applied successfully in GA patients. Although the two designs show systematic differences in the distribution of pRF centre locations, this variability has no impact on the SMC when compared to MP outcome.

This abstract was presented at the 2022 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 1-4, 2022, and virtually.

 

comparison of the data derived from FAF, MP and pRF mapping of all patients. The first column shows FAF results depicting the area of area of outer retinal loss. The second column shows binarised MP results. The third and fourth columns show the binarised pRF coverage maps overlayed with the pRF centres as gray dots representing the centre of a receptive field of a single voxel of each subject created by using one run of Bar and Wedge/Ring stimuli respectively. Comparison of SMC values of the whole visual field and inner- and outer areas is displayed in the fifth column.

comparison of the data derived from FAF, MP and pRF mapping of all patients. The first column shows FAF results depicting the area of area of outer retinal loss. The second column shows binarised MP results. The third and fourth columns show the binarised pRF coverage maps overlayed with the pRF centres as gray dots representing the centre of a receptive field of a single voxel of each subject created by using one run of Bar and Wedge/Ring stimuli respectively. Comparison of SMC values of the whole visual field and inner- and outer areas is displayed in the fifth column.

×
×

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.

×