The topography and variability of the primary visual cortex in man

Stensaas, Suzanne S.; Eddington, Donald K.; Dobelle, William H.

doi:10.3171/jns.1974.40.6.0747

Cited by 401 publications

(201 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

170

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not surprising since various studies have described variations in functional and anatomical patterns in striate and extrastriate cortex (Aine et al, 1996;Amunts et al, 2000;Dumoulin et al, 2000;Gilissen et al, 1995;Gilissen and Zilles, 1996;Hasnain et al, 1998;Rademacher et al,1993;Roland et al,1997;Steinmetz et al, 1990;Steinmetz and Seitz, 1991;Stensaas et al, 1974;Watson et al, 1993) The variability found here can mainly be attributed to variations in gross anatomy and variations in the relationship between gross anatomy and functional areas, rather than methodological differences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…6 provides a validation of the method described here. In the calcarine sulcus a large region of negative field sign (mirror image) is present, around which regions opposite field sign can be distinguished corresponding to the known layout of areas V1 and V2 (Amunts et al, 2000;Clarke and Miklossy, 1990;Gilissen et al, 1995;Gilissen and Zilles, 1996;Holmes, 1945;Horton and Hoyt, 1991;Rademacher et al, 1993;Stensaas et al, 1974;Wong Fig. 6.…”

Section: Volumetric Visual Field Sign Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both cases the VFS maps are weighted by the corresponding t-statistical maps; i.e., the absolute value indicates the statistical accuracy of the VFS calculation (tVFS). In both figures, neighboring areas with different field signs can be distinguished, and are identified based on (1) their field sign, (2) what part of the visual field is represented, (3) their relative organization, and (4) their anatomical locations; e.g., V1 is known to be at least partially located within the calcarine sulcus (Gilissen et al, 1995;Gilissen and Zilles, 1996;Rademacher et al, 1993;Stensaas et al, 1974). Thus the tVFS segmentation of the visual cortex is completely automatic, but not the identification of the visual areas, which has to be done manually.…”

Section: Volumetric Visual Field Sign Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Automatic volumetric segmentation of human visual retinotopic cortex

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous identification of early visual cortical areas in humans with phase-encoded retinotopic mapping techniques have relied on an accurate cortical surface reconstruction. Here a 3D phase-encoded retinotopic mapping technique that does not require a reconstruction of the cortical surface is demonstrated. The visual field sign identification is completely automatic and the method directly supplies volumes for a region-of-interest analysis, facilitating the application of cortical mapping to a wider population. A validation of the method is provided by simulations and comparison to cortical surface-based methodology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Volumetric Visual Field Sign Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Volumetric Visual Field Sign Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automatic volumetric segmentation of human visual retinotopic cortex

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…anatomy and folding patterns are highly variable among individuals (Stensaas et al, 1974), and we do not have access to the individual MRIs that could confirm it.…”

Section: P2 Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retinotopic mapping of visual event-related potentials

Capilla

Melcón

Kessel

et al. 2016

Biological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Esta es la versión de autor del artículo publicado en: This is an author produced version of a paper published in:Biological Psychology 118 (2016) ABSTRACTVisual stimulation is frequently employed in electroencephalographic (EEG) research.However, despite its widespread use, no studies have thoroughly evaluated how the morphology of the visual event-related potentials (ERPs) varies according to the spatial location of stimuli. Hence, the purpose of this study was to perform a detailed retinotopic mapping of visual ERPs. We recorded EEG activity while participants were visually stimulated with 60 pattern-reversing checkerboards placed at different polar angles and eccentricities. Our results show five pattern-reversal ERP components. C1and C2 components inverted polarity between the upper and lower hemifields. P1 and N1 showed higher amplitudes and shorter latencies to stimuli located in the contralateral lower quadrant. In contrast, P2 amplitude was enhanced and its latency was reduced by stimuli presented in the periphery of the upper hemifield. The retinotopic maps presented here could serve as a guide for selecting optimal visuo-spatial locations in future ERP studies. HIGHLIGHTS Extensive and multichannel retinotopic mapping of major visual ERP components. C1 and C2 components showed inverted polarity for upper and lower hemifields. P1 and N1 components were larger when the contralateral lower field was stimulated. P2 showed higher amplitude and shorter latency for peripheral upper field stimuli. Present results can be used to select optimal stimulus locations in ERP designs.

show abstract

“…In humans, the primary areas, motor (M1), somatosensory (S1), and visual (V1), vary Ϸ2-fold in size in a smooth continuum (1)(2)(3)(4)(5). In mice, the sizes of V1 and the S1 barrelfield are very consistent within inbred strains of mice, but their mean sizes can differ between some inbred strains of mice (6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical area size dictates performance at modality-specific behaviors

Leingärtner

Thuret

Kroll

et al. 2007

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mammalian neocortex is organized into unique areas that serve functions such as sensory perception and modality-specific behaviors. The sizes of primary cortical areas vary across species, and also within a species, raising the question of whether area size dictates behavioral performance. We show that adult mice genetically engineered to overexpress the transcription factor EMX2 in embryonic cortical progenitor cells, resulting in reductions in sizes of somatosensory and motor areas, exhibit significant deficiencies at tactile and motor behaviors. Even increasing the size of sensorimotor areas by decreasing cortical EMX2 levels can lead to diminished sensorimotor behaviors. Genetic crosses that retain ectopic Emx2 transgene expression subcortically but restore cortical Emx2 expression to wild-type levels also restore cortical areas to wild-type sizes and in parallel restore tactile and motor behaviors to wild-type performance. These findings show that area size can dictate performance at modality-specific behaviors and suggest that areas have an optimal size, influenced by parameters of its neural system, for maximum behavioral performance. This study underscores the importance of establishing during embryonic development appropriate levels of regulatory proteins that determine area sizes, thereby influencing behavior later in life.cortex ͉ EMX2 ͉ sensorimotor performance ͉ cortical area patterning ͉ somatosensory cortex T he mammalian neocortex is tangentially organized into areas that serve unique functions such as sensory perception and modality-specific behaviors. In humans, the primary areas, motor (M1), somatosensory (S1), and visual (V1), vary Ϸ2-fold in size in a smooth continuum (1-5). In mice, the sizes of V1 and the S1 barrelfield are very consistent within inbred strains of mice, but their mean sizes can differ between some inbred strains of mice (6).These observations raise the question of whether the size of a cortical area influences behavioral performance. Normal humans exhibit significant differences in proficiency at visual psychophysical tasks (7), but these differences have not been correlated to differences in area size. Complementing these findings are studies of adult cortical plasticity. For example, repetitive use of a digit, or microstimulation of its cortical representation, results in an enlarged functional representation in M1 and S1 resulting in an increased overlap with functional representations of adjacent digits. These enlargements, which are evident physiologically but not anatomically, do not extend across area borders, do not increase area size, and have not been shown to affect systems-level behavior (8, 9).Here we address whether differences in cortical area size influence modality-specific behaviors in adults by using genetic manipulations that act during embryonic development to alter cortical area size in a consistent, reproducible manner. Establishing a relationship between area size and behavioral performance could be predictive for behavioral differences between ...

show abstract

The topography and variability of the primary visual cortex in man

Cited by 401 publications

References 22 publications

Automatic volumetric segmentation of human visual retinotopic cortex

Automatic volumetric segmentation of human visual retinotopic cortex

Retinotopic mapping of visual event-related potentials

Cortical area size dictates performance at modality-specific behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About