ArticleNature reviews. Neuroscience2019
Author Correction: Novel electrode technologies for neural recordings.
Article in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optogenetic Brain-Computer Interfaces.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- A Review on Dry Eye Disease Treatment: Recent Progress, Diagnostics, and Future Perspectives.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- A conductive polymer nanowire including functional quantum dots generated via pulsed laser irradiation for high-sensitivity sensor applications.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The Future of Neuroscience: Flexible and Wireless Implantable Neural Electronics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum for
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In part b of Figure 2 in this article, the left bounds of the boxes representing the spatiotemporal resolution of 'EEG/MEG' and 'ECoG' were incorrect. Specifically, the limits of highest temporal resolution for EEG/MEG and ECoG were shown as ~200 ms and ~10 ms and are now corrected to ~2 ms and < 1 ms, respectively. In addition, the lower bounds of the boxes representing 'fMRI/PET' and 'EEG/MEG' incorrectly showed the highest spatial resolution limits of these technologies as ~1 mm and have been corrected to <1 mm and <10 mm, respectively. The upper bound of the 'Implantable electrical probes' box also incorrectly showed the spatial span as ~0.1 mm and has been corrected to between 0.1 and 1 mm due to different spans in different dimensions. The figure has been updated in the online version of the article.
Identifiers
30992558What 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.