Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34180523›Full record

SynthesisCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2021

A Cortical Surface-Based Meta-Analysis of Human Reasoning.

Minho Shin, Hyeon-Ae Jeon

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Minho ShinDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST), Daegu 42988, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3149-3632
Hyeon-Ae JeonDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology (DGIST), Daegu 42988, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8781-5963

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in neuroimaging have augmented numerous findings in the human reasoning process but have yielded varying results. One possibility for this inconsistency is that reasoning is such an intricate cognitive process, involving attention, memory, executive functions, symbolic processing, and fluid intelligence, whereby various brain regions are inevitably implicated in orchestrating the process. Therefore, researchers have used meta-analyses for a better understanding of neural mechanisms of reasoning. However, previous meta-analysis techniques include weaknesses such as an inadequate representation of the cortical surface's highly folded geometry. Accordingly, we developed a new meta-analysis method called Bayesian meta-analysis of the cortical surface (BMACS). BMACS offers a fast, accurate, and accessible inference of the spatial patterns of cognitive processes from peak brain activations across studies by applying spatial point processes to the cortical surface. Using BMACS, we found that the common pattern of activations from inductive and deductive reasoning was colocalized with the multiple-demand system, indicating that reasoning is a high-level convergence of complex cognitive processes. We hope surface-based meta-analysis will be facilitated by BMACS, bringing more profound knowledge of various cognitive processes.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingProblem SolvingBayes TheoremBrainHumansNeuroimagingBayesian meta-analysis of the cortical surface (BMACS)functional magnetic resonance imaginginductive and deductive reasoningintegrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA)log-Gaussian Cox process

Identifiers

PMID34180523
PMCPMC8568011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.