Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31279672›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2019

Lesion Studies in Contemporary Neuroscience.

Avinash R Vaidya, Maia S Pujara, Michael Petrides, Elisabeth A Murray, Lesley K Fellows

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

110 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 231 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Understanding the mind-brain relationship through focal neurodegenerative pathology.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Avinash R VaidyaDepartment of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Carney Institute for Brain Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. Electronic address: avinash_vaidya@brown.edu.
Maia S PujaraSection on the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: maia.pujara@nih.gov.
Michael PetridesDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Elisabeth A MurraySection on the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Lesley K FellowsDepartment of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital · CANational Institutes of Health · USBrown University · US

Funding

Neural Substrates of Reward Processing and EmotionZIAMH002887 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI MURRAY, ELISABETH A · 2009 to 2025
$26.0M
Investigating the neural systems supporting memory-based decision-makingF32MH116592 · NIMH · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI VAIDYA, AVINASH RAO · 2018 to 2020
$188k
CIHR FDN-143212CIHR PJT 159554Intramural NIH HHS ZIA MH002887NIMH NIH HHS F32 MH116592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of humans with focal brain damage and non-human animals with experimentally induced brain lesions have provided pivotal insights into the neural basis of behavior. As the repertoire of neural manipulation and recording techniques expands, the utility of studying permanent brain lesions bears re-examination. Studies on the effects of permanent lesions provide vital data about brain function that are distinct from those of reversible manipulations. Focusing on work carried out in humans and nonhuman primates, we address the inferential strengths and limitations of lesion studies, recent methodological developments, the integration of this approach with other methods, and the clinical and ecological relevance of this research. We argue that lesion studies are essential to the rigorous assessment of neuroscience theories.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainBrain InjuriesBrain MappingHumansNeurosciencesbrain damagehumanslesion–behavior mappinglesion–symptom mappingmethodsneuropsychologynonhuman primates

Identifiers

PMID31279672
PMCPMC6712987
OpenAlexW2955865427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.