Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24018729›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2013

Control of the superior colliculus by the lateral prefrontal cortex.

Stefan Everling, Kevin Johnston

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 2 countries.

Stefan EverlingDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Western Ontario, , London, Ontario, Canada.
Kevin Johnston
Bielefeld University · DEWestern University · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research FRN 44067
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several decades of patient, functional imaging and neurophysiological studies have supported a model in which the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) acts to suppress unwanted saccades by inhibiting activity in the oculomotor system. However, recent results from combined PFC deactivation and neural recordings of the superior colliculus in monkeys demonstrate that the primary influence of the PFC on the oculomotor system is excitatory, and stands in direct contradiction to the inhibitory model of PFC function. Although erroneous saccades towards a visual stimulus are commonly labelled reflexive in patients with PFC damage or dysfunction, the latencies of most of these saccades are outside of the range of express saccades, which are triggered directly by the visual stimulus. Deactivation and pharmacological manipulation studies in monkeys suggest that response errors following PFC damage or dysfunction are not the result of a failure in response suppression but can best be understood in the context of a failure to maintain and implement the proper task set.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAnimalsMacacaMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeural InhibitionNeuronsPhotic StimulationPrefrontal CortexSaccadesSuperior ColliculiTime Factorseye movementsinhibitionprefrontal cortexprimates

Identifiers

PMID24018729
PMCPMC3758210
OpenAlexW2130226520

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.