Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21685932›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2011

The benefits of noise in neural systems: bridging theory and experiment.

Mark D McDonnell, Lawrence M Ward

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 267 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
267citing papers in PubMed
–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

267 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Distinct system-level computations underlie perceptual variation across the visual field.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Decreased BOLD Signal Variability in Middle-Aged and Older Adults on the Autism Spectrum.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark D McDonnellThe Computational and Theoretical Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute for Telecommunications Research, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, SA 5095, Australia. mark.mcdonnell@unisa.edu.au
Lawrence M Ward

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although typically assumed to degrade performance, random fluctuations, or noise, can sometimes improve information processing in non-linear systems. One such form of 'stochastic facilitation', stochastic resonance, has been observed to enhance processing both in theoretical models of neural systems and in experimental neuroscience. However, the two approaches have yet to be fully reconciled. Understanding the diverse roles of noise in neural computation will require the design of experiments based on new theory and models, into which biologically appropriate experimental detail feeds back at various levels of abstraction.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalNonlinear DynamicsAnimalsBiological EvolutionHumansNeuronsNoiseSignal TransductionStochastic Processes

Identifiers

PMID21685932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.