Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26906506›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2016

Computational principles of memory.

Rishidev Chaudhuri, Ila Fiete

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed
–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

97 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Bias in Visual Short-Term Memory for Motion Induced by Perceptually Suppressed Distractors.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  7. Brain-wide single-neuron bases of working memory for sounds in humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  8. Asynchronous firing and off-states in working memory maintenance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Inferring neural population codes forProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A synapse-specific refractory period for plasticity at individual dendritic spines.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 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.

Rishidev ChaudhuriCenter for Learning and Memory and Department of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Ila FieteCenter for Learning and Memory and Department of Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to store and later use information is essential for a variety of adaptive behaviors, including integration, learning, generalization, prediction and inference. In this Review, we survey theoretical principles that can allow the brain to construct persistent states for memory. We identify requirements that a memory system must satisfy and analyze existing models and hypothesized biological substrates in light of these requirements. We also highlight open questions, theoretical puzzles and problems shared with computer science and information theory.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalComputer SimulationHumansInformation TheoryMemory

Identifiers

PMID26906506

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.