Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35617751›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2022

Learning, fast and slow.

Markus Meister

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Adaptive algorithms for shaping behavior.PLoS computational biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Hierarchical behavior control by a single class of interneurons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Adaptive algorithms for shaping behavior.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

1 author.

Markus MeisterDivision of Biology and Biological Engineering, Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute for Neuroscience, California Institute of Technology, United States. Electronic address: meister@caltech.edu.

Funding

Neural Computation for Innate Behaviors in the Superior ColliculusR01NS111477 · NINDS · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI MEISTER, MARKUS · 2019 to 2023
$1.9M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS111477
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals can learn efficiently from a single experience and change their future behavior in response. However, in other instances, animals learn very slowly, requiring thousands of experiences. Here, I survey tasks involving fast and slow learning and consider some hypotheses for what differentiates the underlying neural mechanisms. It has been proposed that fast learning relies on neural representations that favor efficient Hebbian modification of synapses. These efficient representations may be encoded in the genome, resulting in a repertoire of fast learning that differs across species. Alternatively, the required neural representations may be acquired from experience through a slow process of unsupervised learning from the environment.

Indexed as

SynapsesAnimals

Identifiers

PMID35617751
PMCPMC9509687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.