Asymmetries in visual performance at isoeccentric locations are well-documented and functionally important. At a fixed eccentricity, visual performance is best along the horizontal, intermediate along the lower vertical, and poorest along the upper vertical meridian. These performance fields are pervasive across a range of visual tasks, including those mediated by contrast sensitivity. However, contrast performance fields have not been characterized with a systematic manipulation of stimulus spatial frequency, eccentricity, and size; three parameters that constrain contrast sensitivity. Further, individual differences in performance fields measurements have not been assessed. Here, we use an orientation discrimination task to characterize the pattern of contrast sensitivity across four isoeccentric locations along the cardinal meridians, and to examine whether and how this asymmetry pattern changes with systematic manipulation of stimulus spatial frequency (4 cpd to 8 cpd), eccentricity (4.5 degrees to 9 degrees), and size (3 degrees visual angle to 6 degrees visual angle). Our data demonstrate that contrast sensitivity is highest along the horizontal, intermediate along the lower vertical, and poorest along the upper vertical meridian. This pattern is consistent across stimulus parameter manipulations, even though they cause profound shifts in contrast sensitivity. Eccentricity-dependent decreases in contrast sensitivity can be compensated for by scaling stimulus size alone. Moreover, we find that individual variability in the strength of performance field asymmetries is consistent across conditions. This study is the first to systematically and jointly manipulate, and compare, contrast performance fields across spatial frequency, eccentricity, and size, and to address individual variability in performance fields.

Population receptive field (pRF) models fit to fMRI data are used to non-invasively measure retinotopic maps in human visual cortex, and these maps are a fundamental component of visual neuroscience experiments. Here, we examined the reproducibility of retinotopic maps across two datasets: a newly acquired retinotopy dataset from New York University (NYU) ( n = 44) and a public dataset from the Human Connectome Project (HCP) ( n = 181). Our goal was to assess the degree to which pRF properties are similar across datasets, despite substantial differences in their experimental protocols. The two datasets simultaneously differ in their stimulus apertures, participant pool, fMRI protocol, MRI field strength, and preprocessing pipeline. We assessed the cross-dataset reproducibility of the two datasets in terms of the similarity of vertex-wise pRF estimates and in terms of large-scale polar angle asymmetries in cortical magnification. Within V1, V2, V3, and hV4, the group-median NYU and HCP vertex-wise polar angle estimates were nearly identical. Both eccentricity and pRF size estimates were also strongly correlated between the two datasets, but with a slope different from 1; the eccentricity and pRF size estimates were systematically greater in the NYU data. Next, to compare large-scale map properties, we quantified two polar angle asymmetries in V1 cortical magnification previously identified in the HCP data. The NYU dataset confirms earlier reports that more cortical surface area represents horizontal than vertical visual field meridian, and lower than upper vertical visual field meridian. Together, our findings show that the retinotopic properties of V1, V2, V3, and hV4 can be reliably measured across two datasets, despite numerous differences in their experimental design. fMRI-derived retinotopic maps are reproducible because they rely on an explicit computational model of the fMRI response. In the case of pRF mapping, the model is grounded in physiological evidence of how visual receptive fields are organized, allowing one to quantitatively characterize the BOLD signal in terms of stimulus properties (i.e., location and size). The new NYU Retinotopy Dataset will serve as a useful benchmark for testing hypotheses about the organization of visual areas and for comparison to the HCP 7T Retinotopy Dataset.

A central question in neuroscience is how the organization of cortical maps relates to perception, for which human primary visual cortex (V1) is an ideal model system. V1 nonuniformly samples the retinal image, with greater cortical magnification (surface area per degree of visual field) at the fovea than periphery and at the horizontal than vertical meridian. Moreover, the size and cortical magnification of V1 varies greatly across individuals. Here, we used fMRI and psychophysics in the same observers to quantify individual differences in V1 cortical magnification and contrast sensitivity at the four polar angle meridians. Across observers, the overall size of V1 and localized cortical magnification positively correlated with contrast sensitivity. Moreover, greater cortical magnification and higher contrast sensitivity at the horizontal than the vertical meridian were strongly correlated. These data reveal a link between cortical anatomy and visual perception at the level of individual observer and stimulus location.

No abstract

Cells in the peripheral retina tend to have higher contrast sensitivity and respond at higher flicker frequencies than those closer to the fovea. Although this predicts increased behavioural temporal contrast sensitivity in the peripheral visual field, this effect is rarely observed in psychophysical experiments. It is unknown how temporal contrast sensitivity is represented across eccentricity within cortical visual field maps and whether such sensitivities reflect the response properties of retinal cells or psychophysical sensitivities. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure contrast sensitivity profiles at four temporal frequencies in five retinotopically-defined visual areas. We also measured population receptive field (pRF) parameters (polar angle, eccentricity, and size) in the same areas. Overall contrast sensitivity, independent of pRF parameters, peaked at 10 Hz in all visual areas. In V1, V2, V3, and V3a, peripherally-tuned voxels had higher contrast sensitivity at a high temporal frequency (20 Hz), while hV4 more closely reflected behavioural sensitivity profiles. We conclude that our data reflect a cortical representation of the increased peripheral temporal contrast sensitivity that is already present in the retina and that this bias must be compensated later in the cortical visual pathway.