Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29248498›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychologia2018

Towards a neuro-computational account of prism adaptation.

Pierre Petitet, Jill X O'Reilly, Jacinta O'Shea

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychologia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Pierre PetitetWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging (WIN), Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NDCN), University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: pierre.petitet92@gmail.com.
Jill X O'ReillyWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging (WIN), Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NDCN), University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK; Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, 9 South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, UK.
Jacinta O'SheaWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging (WIN), Oxford Centre for Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (NDCN), University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK; Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands. Electronic address: jacinta.oshea@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBRadboud University Nijmegen · NLWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L019639/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prism adaptation has a long history as an experimental paradigm used to investigate the functional and neural processes that underlie sensorimotor control. In the neuropsychology literature, prism adaptation behaviour is typically explained by reference to a traditional cognitive psychology framework that distinguishes putative functions, such as 'strategic control' versus 'spatial realignment'. This theoretical framework lacks conceptual clarity, quantitative precision and explanatory power. Here, we advocate for an alternative computational framework that offers several advantages: 1) an algorithmic explanatory account of the computations and operations that drive behaviour; 2) expressed in quantitative mathematical terms; 3) embedded within a principled theoretical framework (Bayesian decision theory, state-space modelling); 4) that offers a means to generate and test quantitative behavioural predictions. This computational framework offers a route towards mechanistic neurocognitive explanations of prism adaptation behaviour. Thus it constitutes a conceptual advance compared to the traditional theoretical framework. In this paper, we illustrate how Bayesian decision theory and state-space models offer principled explanations for a range of behavioural phenomena in the field of prism adaptation (e.g. visual capture, magnitude of visual versus proprioceptive realignment, spontaneous recovery and dynamics of adaptation memory). We argue that this explanatory framework can advance understanding of the functional and neural mechanisms that implement prism adaptation behaviour, by enabling quantitative tests of hypotheses that go beyond merely descriptive mapping claims that 'brain area X is (somehow) involved in psychological process Y'.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAlgorithmsBrainHumansModels, BiologicalPerceptual DisordersPhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceSpace PerceptionComputational neurosciencePrism adaptationSensorimotor control

Identifiers

PMID29248498
PMCPMC6018603
OpenAlexW2754468217

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.