Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21821411›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2011

Trigger features and excitation in the retina.

W R Taylor, R G Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Synaptic Mechanisms Generating Orientation Selectivity in the ON Pathway of the Rabbit Retina.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2016
    Article
  5. Article
  6. GABAergic neurotransmission and retinal ganglion cell function.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2015
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

W R TaylorCasey Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, United States. taylorw@ohsu.edu
R G Smith
Oregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Mechanisms of Synaptic Processing in the RetinaR01EY014888 · NEI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI TAYLOR, WILLIAM ROWLAND · 2003 to 2015
$4.4M
Retinal circuits for precise signalingR01EY016607 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SMITH, ROBERT G · 2006 to 2014
$2.7M
NEI NIH HHS EY014888NEI NIH HHS EY016607NEI NIH HHS R01 EY014888NEI NIH HHS R01 EY016607
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review focuses on recent advances in our understanding of how neural divergence and convergence give rise to complex encoding properties of retinal ganglion cells. We describe the apparent mismatch between the number of cone bipolar cell types, and the diversity of excitatory input to retinal ganglion cells, and outline two possible solutions. One proposal is for diversity in the excitatory pathways to be generated within axon terminals of cone bipolar cells, and the second invokes narrow-field glycinergic amacrine cells that can apparently act like bipolar cells by providing excitatory drive to ganglion cells. Finally we highlight two advances in technique that promise to provide future insights; automation of electron microscope data collection and analysis, and the use of the ideal observer to quantitatively compare neural performance at all levels.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansModels, BiologicalNeuronsPhotic StimulationRetinaVisual Pathways

Identifiers

PMID21821411
PMCPMC3463620
OpenAlexW2034722615

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.