ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2017
Using computational theory to constrain statistical models of neural data.
Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Decoding the application of deep learning in neuroscience: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- An integratediScience · 2026Article
- Revisiting the role of computational neuroimaging in the era of integrative neuroscience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Imaging whole-brain activity to understand behavior.Nature reviews. Physics · 2022Article
- Review
- Statistical neuroscience in the single trial limit.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2021Review
- Moving beyond generalization to accurate interpretation of flexible models.Nature machine intelligence · 2020Article
- Scaling up psychology via Scientific Regret Minimization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational neuroscience is, to first order, dominated by two approaches: the 'bottom-up' approach, which searches for statistical patterns in large-scale neural recordings, and the 'top-down' approach, which begins with a theory of computation and considers plausible neural implementations. While this division is not clear-cut, we argue that these approaches should be much more intimately linked. From a Bayesian perspective, computational theories provide constrained prior distributions on neural data-albeit highly sophisticated ones. By connecting theory to observation via a probabilistic model, we provide the link necessary to test, evaluate, and revise our theories in a data-driven and statistically rigorous fashion. This review highlights examples of this theory-driven pipeline for neural data analysis in recent literature and illustrates it with a worked example based on the temporal difference learning model of dopamine.
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.