↓ Skip to main content

On the Differentiation of Foveal and Peripheral Early Visual Evoked Potentials

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Topography, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the Differentiation of Foveal and Peripheral Early Visual Evoked Potentials
Published in
Brain Topography, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10548-016-0475-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce C. Hansen, Andrew M. Haun, Aaron P. Johnson, Dave Ellemberg

Abstract

The C1 is one of the earliest visual evoked potentials observed following the onset of a patterned stimulus. The polarity of its peak is dependent on whether stimuli are presented in the upper or lower regions of the peripheral visual field, but has been argued to be negative for stimuli presented to the fovea. However, there has yet to be a systematic investigation into the extent to which the peripheral C1 (pC1) and foveal C1 (fC1) can be differentiated on the basis of response characteristics to different stimuli. The current study employed checkerboard patterns (Exp 1) and sinusoidal gratings of different spatial frequency (Exp 2) presented to the fovea or within one of the four quadrants of the peripheral visual field. The checkerboard stimuli yielded a sizable difference in peak component latency, with the fC1 peaking ~32 ms after the pC1. Further, the pC1 showed a band-pass response magnitude profile that peaked at 4 cycles per degree (cpd), whereas the fC1 was high-pass for spatial frequency, with a cut-off around 4 cpd. Finally, the scalp topographies of the pC1 and fC1 in both experiments differed greatly, with the fC1 being more posterior than the pC1. The results reported here call into question recent attempts to characterize general C1 processes without regard to whether stimuli are placed in the fovea or in the periphery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 6%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 22%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 38%
Neuroscience 7 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 5 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,359,595
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Brain Topography
#304
of 487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,108
of 400,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Topography
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 487 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.