ArticleScientific reports2021
Simulating lesion-dependent functional recovery mechanisms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurorehabilitation in the 21st Century: New Science, New Strategies, New Expectations.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2026Review
- Computational Models for Bilingual Aphasia: A Systematic Review of Language Deficit Research with a Focus on Code-Switching and Translation.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Degeneracy in the neurological model of auditory speech repetition.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Anxious individuals shift emotion control from lateral frontal pole to dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Nature communications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional recovery after brain damage varies widely and depends on many factors, including lesion site and extent. When a neuronal system is damaged, recovery may occur by engaging residual (e.g., perilesional) components. When damage is extensive, recovery depends on the availability of other intact neural structures that can reproduce the same functional output (i.e., degeneracy). A system's response to damage may occur rapidly, require learning or both. Here, we simulate functional recovery from four different types of lesions, using a generative model of word repetition that comprised a default premorbid system and a less used alternative system. The synthetic lesions (i) completely disengaged the premorbid system, leaving the alternative system intact, (ii) partially damaged both premorbid and alternative systems, and (iii) limited the experience-dependent plasticity of both. The results, across 1000 trials, demonstrate that (i) a complete disconnection of the premorbid system naturally invoked the engagement of the other, (ii) incomplete damage to both systems had a much more devastating long-term effect on model performance and (iii) the effect of reducing learning capacity within each system. These findings contribute to formal frameworks for interpreting the effect of different types of lesions.
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.