Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21497128›Full record

ArticleTrends in cognitive sciences2011

Understanding complexity in the human brain.

Danielle S Bassett, Michael S Gazzaniga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 213 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
213citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

213 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Modular reconfiguration of an auditory control brain network supports adaptive listening behavior.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Dynamic network structure of interhemispheric coordination.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2012
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

153 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Danielle S BassettComplex Systems Group, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. dbassett@physics.ucsb.edu
Michael S Gazzaniga

Funding

SUMMER INSTITUTE OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCER25MH057541 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI MANGUN, GEORGE R · 1997 to 2019
$3.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH057541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the ultimate aim of neuroscientific enquiry is to gain an understanding of the brain and how its workings relate to the mind, the majority of current efforts are largely focused on small questions using increasingly detailed data. However, it might be possible to successfully address the larger question of mind-brain mechanisms if the cumulative findings from these neuroscientific studies are coupled with complementary approaches from physics and philosophy. The brain, we argue, can be understood as a complex system or network, in which mental states emerge from the interaction between multiple physical and functional levels. Achieving further conceptual progress will crucially depend on broad-scale discussions regarding the properties of cognition and the tools that are currently available or must be developed in order to study mind-brain mechanisms.

Indexed as

Brain MappingPsychophysiologyAnimalsBrainHumansMental ProcessesModels, NeurologicalModels, PsychologicalNeural Pathways

Identifiers

PMID21497128
PMCPMC3170818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.