Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34799134›Full record

ReviewTrends in neurosciences2022

What can we learn from inactivation studies? Lessons from auditory cortex.

Zuzanna A Slonina, Katarina C Poole, Jennifer K Bizley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in neurosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Reversible Inactivation of Ferret Auditory Cortex Impairs Spatial and Nonspatial Hearing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Sound Localization of World and Head-Centered Space in Ferrets.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  13. 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

3 authors.

Zuzanna A SloninaEar Institute, University College London, London WC1X 8EE, UK.
Katarina C PooleEar Institute, University College London, London WC1X 8EE, UK.
Jennifer K BizleyEar Institute, University College London, London WC1X 8EE, UK. Electronic address: j.bizley@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inactivation experiments in auditory cortex (AC) produce widely varying results that complicate interpretations regarding the precise role of AC in auditory perception and ensuing behaviour. The advent of optogenetic methods in neuroscience offers previously unachievable insight into the mechanisms transforming brain activity into behaviour. With a view to aiding the design and interpretation of future studies in and outside AC, here we discuss the methodological challenges faced in manipulating neural activity. While considering AC's role in auditory behaviour through the prism of inactivation experiments, we consider the factors that confound the interpretation of the effects of inactivation on behaviour, including the species, the type of inactivation, the behavioural task employed, and the exact location of the inactivation.

Indexed as

Auditory CortexAcoustic StimulationAuditory PerceptionHumansOptogeneticsbehaviourcausal manipulationhearinglesionsoptogeneticssilencing

Identifiers

PMID34799134
PMCPMC8897194

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.