Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33665005›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Sensing and processing whisker deflections in rodents.

Thomas F Burns, Ramesh Rajan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas F BurnsBiomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ramesh RajanBiomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The classical view of sensory information mainly flowing into barrel cortex at layer IV, moving up for complex feature processing and lateral interactions in layers II and III, then down to layers V and VI for output and corticothalamic feedback is becoming increasingly undermined by new evidence. We review the neurophysiology of sensing and processing whisker deflections, emphasizing the general processing and organisational principles present along the entire sensory pathway-from the site of physical deflection at the whiskers to the encoding of deflections in the barrel cortex. Many of these principles support the classical view. However, we also highlight the growing number of exceptions to these general principles, which complexify the system and which investigators should be mindful of when interpreting their results. We identify gaps in the literature for experimentalists and theorists to investigate, not just to better understand whisker sensation but also to better understand sensory and cortical processing.

Indexed as

Barrel cortexCortical columnInhibitionMicrocircuitsSensory pathwaySensory processingSeptaSomatopyThalamocortical pathwayWhisker

Identifiers

PMID33665005
PMCPMC7906041
OpenAlexW3132279989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.