ArticleeLife2017
Learning and recognition of tactile temporal sequences by mice and humans.
Article in eLife, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Working Memory Predicts Long-Term Recognition of Auditory Sequences: Dissociation Between Confirmed Predictions and Prediction Errors.Scandinavian journal of psychology · 2025Article
- Harmonization of the fastest and densest responses reflects humanlike reaction time in mice.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Optogenetic manipulation of inhibitory interneurons can be used to validate a model of spatiotemporal sequence learning.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2023Article
- Non-telecentric two-photon microscopy for 3D random access mesoscale imaging.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Sequence Learning Induces Selectivity to Multiple Task Parameters in Mouse Somatosensory Cortex.Current biology : CB · 2021Article
- Learning boosts the decoding of sound sequences in rat auditory cortex.Current research in neurobiology · 2021Article
- Article
- Prediction of Choice from Competing Mechanosensory and Choice-Memory Cues during Active Tactile Decision Making.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Article
- Organization of sensory feature selectivity in the whisker system.Neuroscience · 2018Review
- Cortical integration of tactile inputs distributed across timescales.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The world around us is replete with stimuli that unfold over time. When we hear an auditory stream like music or speech or scan a texture with our fingertip, physical features in the stimulus are concatenated in a particular order. This temporal patterning is critical to interpreting the stimulus. To explore the capacity of mice and humans to learn tactile sequences, we developed a task in which subjects had to recognise a continuous modulated noise sequence delivered to whiskers or fingertips, defined by its temporal patterning over hundreds of milliseconds. GO and NO-GO sequences differed only in that the order of their constituent noise modulation segments was temporally scrambled. Both mice and humans efficiently learned tactile sequences. Mouse sequence recognition depended on detecting transitions in noise amplitude; animals could base their decision on the earliest information available. Humans appeared to use additional cues, including the duration of noise modulation segments.
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.