Review



visual field coverage maps  (Amano Inc)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Amano Inc visual field coverage maps
    Group <t>coverage</t> surface‐volumetric differences in noiseless data and simulations to check for CNR and pRF size effects. Bootstrapped (50 repetitions with replacement) effect size (Cohen's d) representation of the surface‐volume difference in <t>field</t> of view coverage depending on the different analyses. The comparisons were paired. A. Noiseless data in volumetric versus its projection to the surface. Only voxels with more than 50% variance explained were included. B. Simulations to examine CNR effects. pRF size between the two conditions was kept constant, while the CNR differences were increased from left to right. With no CNR difference, the Cohen's d <t>map</t> equals a random field (leftmost panel). With CNR differences, a clear bias toward higher coverage in the fovea and lower coverage in the periphery appears (center and right panels). C. Simulations to examine pRF size effects. CNR was equated in the two conditions, but the pRF size for the surface condition was increased from left to right. With increasing difference a similar bias occurs, however, the bias in the foveal compared to peripheral areas was less pronounced.
    Visual Field Coverage Maps, supplied by Amano Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/visual field coverage maps/product/Amano Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    visual field coverage maps - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Biases in Volumetric Versus Surface Analyses in Population Receptive Field Mapping"

    Article Title: Biases in Volumetric Versus Surface Analyses in Population Receptive Field Mapping

    Journal: Human Brain Mapping

    doi: 10.1002/hbm.70140

    Group coverage surface‐volumetric differences in noiseless data and simulations to check for CNR and pRF size effects. Bootstrapped (50 repetitions with replacement) effect size (Cohen's d) representation of the surface‐volume difference in field of view coverage depending on the different analyses. The comparisons were paired. A. Noiseless data in volumetric versus its projection to the surface. Only voxels with more than 50% variance explained were included. B. Simulations to examine CNR effects. pRF size between the two conditions was kept constant, while the CNR differences were increased from left to right. With no CNR difference, the Cohen's d map equals a random field (leftmost panel). With CNR differences, a clear bias toward higher coverage in the fovea and lower coverage in the periphery appears (center and right panels). C. Simulations to examine pRF size effects. CNR was equated in the two conditions, but the pRF size for the surface condition was increased from left to right. With increasing difference a similar bias occurs, however, the bias in the foveal compared to peripheral areas was less pronounced.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Group coverage surface‐volumetric differences in noiseless data and simulations to check for CNR and pRF size effects. Bootstrapped (50 repetitions with replacement) effect size (Cohen's d) representation of the surface‐volume difference in field of view coverage depending on the different analyses. The comparisons were paired. A. Noiseless data in volumetric versus its projection to the surface. Only voxels with more than 50% variance explained were included. B. Simulations to examine CNR effects. pRF size between the two conditions was kept constant, while the CNR differences were increased from left to right. With no CNR difference, the Cohen's d map equals a random field (leftmost panel). With CNR differences, a clear bias toward higher coverage in the fovea and lower coverage in the periphery appears (center and right panels). C. Simulations to examine pRF size effects. CNR was equated in the two conditions, but the pRF size for the surface condition was increased from left to right. With increasing difference a similar bias occurs, however, the bias in the foveal compared to peripheral areas was less pronounced.

    Techniques Used:



    Similar Products

    visual field coverage maps  (Amano Inc)
    90
    Amano Inc visual field coverage maps
    Group <t>coverage</t> surface‐volumetric differences in noiseless data and simulations to check for CNR and pRF size effects. Bootstrapped (50 repetitions with replacement) effect size (Cohen's d) representation of the surface‐volume difference in <t>field</t> of view coverage depending on the different analyses. The comparisons were paired. A. Noiseless data in volumetric versus its projection to the surface. Only voxels with more than 50% variance explained were included. B. Simulations to examine CNR effects. pRF size between the two conditions was kept constant, while the CNR differences were increased from left to right. With no CNR difference, the Cohen's d <t>map</t> equals a random field (leftmost panel). With CNR differences, a clear bias toward higher coverage in the fovea and lower coverage in the periphery appears (center and right panels). C. Simulations to examine pRF size effects. CNR was equated in the two conditions, but the pRF size for the surface condition was increased from left to right. With increasing difference a similar bias occurs, however, the bias in the foveal compared to peripheral areas was less pronounced.
    Visual Field Coverage Maps, supplied by Amano Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/visual field coverage maps/product/Amano Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    visual field coverage maps - by Bioz Stars, 2026-05
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Group coverage surface‐volumetric differences in noiseless data and simulations to check for CNR and pRF size effects. Bootstrapped (50 repetitions with replacement) effect size (Cohen's d) representation of the surface‐volume difference in field of view coverage depending on the different analyses. The comparisons were paired. A. Noiseless data in volumetric versus its projection to the surface. Only voxels with more than 50% variance explained were included. B. Simulations to examine CNR effects. pRF size between the two conditions was kept constant, while the CNR differences were increased from left to right. With no CNR difference, the Cohen's d map equals a random field (leftmost panel). With CNR differences, a clear bias toward higher coverage in the fovea and lower coverage in the periphery appears (center and right panels). C. Simulations to examine pRF size effects. CNR was equated in the two conditions, but the pRF size for the surface condition was increased from left to right. With increasing difference a similar bias occurs, however, the bias in the foveal compared to peripheral areas was less pronounced.

    Journal: Human Brain Mapping

    Article Title: Biases in Volumetric Versus Surface Analyses in Population Receptive Field Mapping

    doi: 10.1002/hbm.70140

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Group coverage surface‐volumetric differences in noiseless data and simulations to check for CNR and pRF size effects. Bootstrapped (50 repetitions with replacement) effect size (Cohen's d) representation of the surface‐volume difference in field of view coverage depending on the different analyses. The comparisons were paired. A. Noiseless data in volumetric versus its projection to the surface. Only voxels with more than 50% variance explained were included. B. Simulations to examine CNR effects. pRF size between the two conditions was kept constant, while the CNR differences were increased from left to right. With no CNR difference, the Cohen's d map equals a random field (leftmost panel). With CNR differences, a clear bias toward higher coverage in the fovea and lower coverage in the periphery appears (center and right panels). C. Simulations to examine pRF size effects. CNR was equated in the two conditions, but the pRF size for the surface condition was increased from left to right. With increasing difference a similar bias occurs, however, the bias in the foveal compared to peripheral areas was less pronounced.

    Article Snippet: Visual field coverage maps (Amano, Wandell, and Dumoulin ) were created independently for every run and condition (volume and surface results) as follows.

    Techniques: