%0 Journal Article %A de Best, Pieter B. %A Raz, Noa %A Dumoulin, Serge O. %A Levin, Netta %T How Ocular Dominance and Binocularity Are Reflected by the Population Receptive Field PropertiesBinocular Population Receptive Fields and Amplitudes %B Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science %D 2018 %R 10.1167/iovs.18-24161 %J Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science %V 59 %N 13 %P 5301-5311 %@ 1552-5783 %X The neural substrate of binocularity and sighting ocular dominance in humans is not clear. By utilizing the population receptive field (pRF) modeling technique, we explored whether these phenomena are associated with amplitude and pRF size differences. The visual field maps of 13 subjects were scanned (3-T Skyra) while viewing drifting bar stimuli. Both eyes (binocular condition), the dominant eye and the nondominant eye (two monocular conditions) were stimulated in separate sessions. For each condition, pRF size and amplitude were assessed. Binocular summation ratios were calculated by dividing binocular by mean monocular values (amplitude and pRF size). No differences in pRF size were seen between the viewing conditions within each region, that is, either between binocular and monocular or between dominant and nondominant viewing conditions. Binocular amplitudes were higher than the monocular amplitudes, but similar among the dominant and nondominant eyes. Binocular summation ratios derived from amplitudes were significantly higher than one (∼1.2), while those ratios derived from pRF size were not. These effects were found in all studied areas along the visual hierarchy, starting in V1. Neither the amplitude nor the pRF size show intereye difference and therefore cannot explain the different roles of the dominant and the nondominant eyes. Binocular, as compared to monocular vision, resulted in higher amplitudes, while receptive fields' sizes were similar, suggesting increased binocular response intensity as the basis for the binocular summation phenomenon. Our results could be applicable in imaging studies of monocular disease and studies that deal with nondisparity binocularity effects. %[ 6/17/2019 %U https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.18-24161