ReviewFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2019
Why Study the History of Neuroscience?
Review in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Progress and ongoing conceptual challenges "on the way to integrative human neuroscience"-ten years after.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2026Article
- From Mary Shelley to Netflix: a Pan-European perspective on public communication of neuroscience and neurotechnology.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Article
- Integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics project-based learning for physics learning from neuroscience perspectives.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- The Hebb Synapse Before Hebb: Theories of Synaptic Function in Learning and Memory Before , With a Discussion of the Long-Lost Synaptic Theory of William McDougall.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2021Review
- Complement Has Brains-Do Intracellular Complement and Immunometabolism Cooperate in Tissue Homeostasis and Behavior?Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Commentary: Why Study the History of Neuroscience?Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The history of neuroscience is the memory of the discipline and this memory depends on the study of the present traces of the past; the things left behind: artifacts, equipment, written documents, data books, photographs, memoirs, etc. History, in all of its definitions, is an integral part of neuroscience and I have used examples from the literature and my personal experience to illustrate the importance of the different aspects of history in neuroscience. Each time we talk about the brain, do an experiment, or write a research article, we are involved in history. Each published experiment becomes a historical document; it relies on past research (the "Introduction" section), procedures developed in the past ("Methods" section) and as soon as new data are published, they become history and become embedded into the history of the discipline ("Discussion" section). In order to be transparent and able to be replicated, each experiment requires its own historical archive. Studying history means researching books, documents and objects in libraries, archives, and museums. It means looking at data books, letters and memos, talking to scientists, and reading biographies and autobiographies. History can be made relevant by integrating historical documents into classes and by using historical websites. Finally, conducting historical research can be interesting, entertaining, and can lead to travel to out-of-the-way and exotic places and meeting interesting people.
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.