Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33199854›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2021

If deep learning is the answer, what is the question?

Andrew Saxe, Stephanie Nelli, Christopher Summerfield

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The neuroscience of transformers.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2026
    Article
  4. Making models disagree to learn how brains compute.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Understanding human metacontrol and its pathologies using deep neural networks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. WhenAPL bioengineering · 2025
    Review
  20. Article

73 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

3 authors.

Andrew SaxeDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. andrew.saxe@psy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9831-8812
Stephanie NelliDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. stephanie.nelli@psy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3444-6871
Christopher SummerfieldDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. christopher.summerfield@psy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2941-2653

Funding

Wellcome Trust 216386/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroscience research is undergoing a minor revolution. Recent advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence research have opened up new ways of thinking about neural computation. Many researchers are excited by the possibility that deep neural networks may offer theories of perception, cognition and action for biological brains. This approach has the potential to radically reshape our approach to understanding neural systems, because the computations performed by deep networks are learned from experience, and not endowed by the researcher. If so, how can neuroscientists use deep networks to model and understand biological brains? What is the outlook for neuroscientists who seek to characterize computations or neural codes, or who wish to understand perception, attention, memory and executive functions? In this Perspective, our goal is to offer a road map for systems neuroscience research in the age of deep learning. We discuss the conceptual and methodological challenges of comparing behaviour, learning dynamics and neural representations in artificial and biological systems, and we highlight new research questions that have emerged for neuroscience as a direct consequence of recent advances in machine learning.

Indexed as

BrainDeep LearningNeural Networks, ComputerHumansNeurosciences

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.