ArticleNeuroinformatics2019
Response to "Fallacies of Mice Experiments".
Article in Neuroinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Purkinje Cell Activity in the Medial and Lateral Cerebellum During Suppression of Voluntary Eye Movements in Rhesus Macaques.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a recent Editorial, De Schutter commented on our recent study on the roles of a cortico-cerebellar loop in motor planning in mice (De Schutter 2019, Neuroinformatics, 17, 181-183, Gao et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 113-116). Two issues were raised. First, De Schutter questions the involvement of the fastigial nucleus in motor planning, rather than the dentate nucleus, given previous anatomical studies in non-human primates. Second, De Schutter suggests that our study design did not delineate different components of the behavior and the fastigial nucleus might play roles in sensory discrimination rather than motor planning. These comments are based on anatomical studies in other species and homology-based arguments and ignore key anatomical data and neurophysiological experiments from our study. Here we outline our interpretation of existing data and point out gaps in knowledge where future studies are needed.
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.