Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37172067›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Pupillary response is associated with the reset and switching of functional brain networks during salience processing.

Hengda He, Linbi Hong, Paul Sajda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Evidence for domain-general arousal from semantic and neuroimaging meta-analyses reconciles opposing views on arousal.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Hengda HeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6925-8179
Linbi HongDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Paul SajdaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The interface between processing internal goals and salient events in the environment involves various top-down processes. Previous studies have identified multiple brain areas for salience processing, including the salience network (SN), dorsal attention network, and the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) system. However, interactions among these systems in salience processing remain unclear. Here, we simultaneously recorded pupillometry, EEG, and fMRI during an auditory oddball paradigm. The analyses of EEG and fMRI data uncovered spatiotemporally organized target-associated neural correlates. By modeling the target-modulated effective connectivity, we found that the target-evoked pupillary response is associated with the network directional couplings from late to early subsystems in the trial, as well as the network switching initiated by the SN. These findings indicate that the SN might cooperate with the pupil-indexed LC-NE system in the reset and switching of cortical networks, and shed light on their implications in various cognitive processes and neurological diseases.

Indexed as

BrainLocus CoeruleusBrain MappingMagnetic Resonance ImagingNorepinephrinePupilNorepinephrine

Identifiers

PMID37172067
PMCPMC10208478

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.