Intrasession and Intersession Reproducibility of Artificial Scotoma pRF Mapping Results at Ultra- High Fields

Published online September 6, 2022.Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) combined with population receptive field (pRF) mapping allows for associating positions on the visual cortex to areas on the visual field. Apart from applications in healthy subjects, this method can also be used to examine dysfunctions in patients suffering from partial visual field losses. While such objective measurement of visual deficits (scotoma) is of great importance for, e.g., longitudinal studies addressing treatment effects, it requires a thorough assessment of accuracy and reproducibility of the results obtained. In this study, we quantified the reproducibility of pRF mapping results within and across sessions in case of central visual field loss in a group of 15 human subjects. We simulated scotoma by masking a central area of 2° radius from stimulation to establish ground-truth conditions. This study was performed on a 7T ultra-high field MRI scanner for increased sensitivity. We found excellent intrasession and intersession reproducibility for the pRF center position (Spearman correlation coefficients for x, y: .0.95; eccentricity: .0.87; polar angle: .0.98), but only modest reproducibility for pRF size (Spearman correlation coefficients around 0.4). We further examined the scotoma detection performance using an automated method based on a reference dataset acquired with full-field stimulation. For the 2° artificial scotoma, the group-averaged scotoma sizes were estimated at between 1.92° and 2.19° for different sessions. We conclude that pRF mapping of visual field losses yields robust, reproducible measures of retinal function and suggest the use of pRF mapping as an objective method for monitoring visual deficits during therapeutic interventions or disease progression.Austrian Science Fund (FWF) P35583; P33180; KLI670 Eusko Jaurlaritza (Gobierno Vasco) BERC 2022-2025 Spanish State Research Agency CEX2020-001010-S Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation IJC2020-042887-

Comparison of Stimulus Types for Retinotopic Cortical Mapping of Macular Disease

Published: March 13, 2023Purpose: Retinotopic maps acquired using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) provide a valuable adjunct in the assessment of macular function at the level of the visual cortex. The present study quantitatively assessed 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 (AMD)were examined using high-resolution ultra-high field fMRI (Siemens Magnetom 7T) and microperimetry (MP; Nidek MP-3). The population receptive field (pRF)-based coverage maps obtained with two different stimulus techniques (moving bars, and rotating wedges and expanding rings) were compared with the results of MP. Correspondence between MP and pRF mapping was quantified by calculating the simple matching coefficient (SMC). Results: Stimulus choice is shown to bias the spatial distribution of pRF centers and eccentricity values with pRF sizes obtained fromwedge/ring or bar stimulation showing systematic differences. Wedge/ring stimulation results show a higher number of pRF centers in foveal areas and strongly reduced pRF sizes compared to bar stimulation runs. A statistical comparison shows significantly higher pRF center numbers in the foveal 2.5 degrees region of the visual field for wedge/ring compared to bar stimuli. However, these differences do not significantly influence SMC values when compared to MP (bar 2.5 degrees: 0.88±0.11;wedge/ring<2.5 degrees: 0.89 ± 0.12 wedge/ring; >2.5 degrees: 0.86 ± 0.10) for the peripheral visual field. Conclusions: Both visual stimulation designs examined can be applied successfully in patients with GA. Although the two designs show systematic differences in the distribution of pRF center locations, this variability has minimal impact on the SMC when compared to the MP outcome.Supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF); KLI 670-B3