ArticleVisual neuroscience2013
Retinocollicular mapping explained?
Article in Visual neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- New insights on the modeling of the molecular mechanisms underlying neural maps alignment in the midbrain.eLife · 2020Article
- Visual Maps Development: Reconsidering the Role of Retinal Efnas and Basic Principle of Map Alignment.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2018Article
- Quantitative assessment of computational models for retinotopic map formation.Developmental neurobiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We review and comment on the recent model of Grimbert and Cang of the development of topographically ordered maps from the retina to the superior colliculus. This model posits a phase in which arbors are created in zones permitted by Eph and ephrin signaling, followed by a phase in which activity-dependent synaptic plasticity refines the map. We show that it is not possible to generate the arborization probability functions used in the simulations of Grimbert and Cang using gradients of Ephs and ephrins and the interaction mechanism that Grimbert and Cang propose in their results. Furthermore, the arborization probabilities we do generate are far less sharp than we imagine truly “permissive” ones would be. It remains to be seen if maps can be generated from the nonpermissive arborization probabilities generated from gradients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.