Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25272154›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

A model for visual memory encoding.

Rodolphe Nenert, Jane B Allendorfer, Jerzy P Szaflarski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Recent Advances in Neuroimaging of Epilepsy.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Rodolphe NenertDepartment of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Jane B AllendorferDepartment of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Jerzy P SzaflarskiDepartment of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America; Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America; Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America.

Funding

fMRI of Language Recover Following Stroke in AdultsR01NS048281 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI SZAFLARSKI, JERZY P · 2008 to 2012
$2.3M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS048281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Memory encoding engages multiple concurrent and sequential processes. While the individual processes involved in successful encoding have been examined in many studies, a sequence of events and the importance of modules associated with memory encoding has not been established. For this reason, we sought to perform a comprehensive examination of the network for memory encoding using data driven methods and to determine the directionality of the information flow in order to build a viable model of visual memory encoding. Forty healthy controls ages 19-59 performed a visual scene encoding task. FMRI data were preprocessed using SPM8 and then processed using independent component analysis (ICA) with the reliability of the identified components confirmed using ICASSO as implemented in GIFT. The directionality of the information flow was examined using Granger causality analyses (GCA). All participants performed the fMRI task well above the chance level (>90% correct on both active and control conditions) and the post-fMRI testing recall revealed correct memory encoding at 86.33 ± 5.83%. ICA identified involvement of components of five different networks in the process of memory encoding, and the GCA allowed for the directionality of the information flow to be assessed, from visual cortex via ventral stream to the attention network and then to the default mode network (DMN). Two additional networks involved in this process were the cerebellar and the auditory-insular network. This study provides evidence that successful visual memory encoding is dependent on multiple modules that are part of other networks that are only indirectly related to the main process. This model may help to identify the node(s) of the network that are affected by a specific disease processes and explain the presence of memory encoding difficulties in patients in whom focal or global network dysfunction exists.

Indexed as

MemoryModels, BiologicalVisual PerceptionAdultBrainBrain MappingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25272154
PMCPMC4182671

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.