Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33522482›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Performance in even a simple perceptual task depends on mouse secondary visual areas.

Hannah C Goldbach, Bradley Akitake, Caitlin E Leedy, Mark H Histed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Ecological Visual Processing in the Mouse.Annual review of neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Causal and directional elements of global brain dynamics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cellular-resolution optogenetics reveals attenuation-by-suppression in visual cortical neurons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Hannah C Goldbach *Unit on Neural Computation and Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5697-4694
Bradley Akitake *Unit on Neural Computation and Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1817-4573
Caitlin E LeedyUnit on Neural Computation and Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9277-5409
Mark H HistedUnit on Neural Computation and Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Program, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8235-7908

Funding

Readout and control of spatiotemporal neuronal codes for behaviorU19NS107464 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI BABADI, BEHTASH, CHIALVO, DANTE R · 2018 to 2022
$17.3M
Patterns of neuronal activity underlying behavioral decisionsZIAMH002956 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI HISTED, MARK · 2016 to 2025
$11.1M
Computation by recurrent circuits of the cerebral cortexZIAMH002967 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI HISTED, MARK · 2017 to 2025
$7.0M
BRAIN project (Histed): Readout and Control of Spatiotemporal Neuronal Codes of BehaviorZIAMH002972 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI HISTED, MARK · 2019 to 2023
$1.5M
BRAIN project: Circuitry Underlying Response Summation: Theory and ExperimentZIAMH002973 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI HISTED, MARK · 2019 to 2021
$582k
NIH HHS U19NS107464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Primary visual cortex (V1) in the mouse projects to numerous brain areas, including several secondary visual areas, frontal cortex, and basal ganglia. While it has been demonstrated that optogenetic silencing of V1 strongly impairs visually guided behavior, it is not known which downstream areas are required for visual behaviors. Here we trained mice to perform a contrast-increment change detection task, for which substantial stimulus information is present in V1. Optogenetic silencing of visual responses in secondary visual areas revealed that their activity is required for even this simple visual task. In vivo electrophysiology showed that, although inhibiting secondary visual areas could produce some feedback effects in V1, the principal effect was profound suppression at the location of the optogenetic light. The results show that pathways through secondary visual areas are necessary for even simple visual behaviors.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AnimalContrast SensitivityElectrophysiological PhenomenaFemaleMaleMiceMice, TransgenicOptogeneticsPrimary Visual CortexVisual CortexVisual Perceptioncerebral cortexmouseneural circuitsneuroscienceoptogenetics

Identifiers

PMID33522482
PMCPMC7990500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.