Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24416002›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in systems neuroscience2013

Computational models of basal-ganglia pathway functions: focus on functional neuroanatomy.

Henning Schroll, Fred H Hamker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Biophysical and Architectural Mechanisms of Subthalamic Theta under Response Conflict.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article

6 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.

Henning SchrollBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Charitè - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Department of Neurology, Charitè - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Department of Computer Science, Chemnitz University of Technology Chemnitz, Germany.
Fred H HamkerBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Charitè - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Berlin, Germany ; Department of Computer Science, Chemnitz University of Technology Chemnitz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, computational models have had a considerable impact on basal-ganglia research. Most of these models implement multiple distinct basal-ganglia pathways and assume them to fulfill different functions. As there is now a multitude of different models, it has become complex to keep track of their various, sometimes just marginally different assumptions on pathway functions. Moreover, it has become a challenge to oversee to what extent individual assumptions are corroborated or challenged by empirical data. Focusing on computational, but also considering non-computational models, we review influential concepts of pathway functions and show to what extent they are compatible with or contradict each other. Moreover, we outline how empirical evidence favors or challenges specific model assumptions and propose experiments that allow testing assumptions against each other.

Indexed as

dopaminegatingreinforcement learningresponse selectionresponse timingstimulus-response associationworking memory

Identifiers

PMID24416002
PMCPMC3874581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.