ArticleCognitive neurodynamics2020
A spiking neural network model of spatial and visual mental imagery.
Article in Cognitive neurodynamics, 2020. 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.
- From Brain Models to Robotic Embodied Cognition: How Does Biological Plausibility Inform Neuromorphic Systems?Brain sciences · 2023Review
- Neural computing in four spatial dimensions.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental imagery has long been of interest to the cognitive and neurosciences, but how it manifests itself in the mind and brain still remains unresolved. In pursuit of this, we built a spiking neural model that can perform mental rotation and mental map scanning using strategies informed by the psychology and neuroscience literature. Results: When performing mental map scanning, reaction times (RTs) for our model closely match behavioural studies (approx. 50 ms/cm), and replicate the cognitive penetrability of the task. When performing mental rotation, our model's RTs once again closely match behavioural studies (model: 55-65°/s; studies: 60°/s), and performed the task using the same task strategy (whole unit rotation of simple and familiar objects through intermediary points). Overall, our model suggests: (1) vector-based approaches to neuro-cognitive modelling are well equipped to re-produce behavioural findings, and (2) the cognitive (in)penetrability of imagery tasks may depend on whether or not the task makes use of (non)symbolic processing.
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.