Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39075326›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2024

Centering cognitive neuroscience on task demands and generalization.

Matthias Nau, Alexandra C Schmid, Simon M Kaplan, Chris I Baker, Dwight J Kravitz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Sensory reformatting for a working visual memory.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Memory under siege: the cognitive costs of smoking and vaping.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Action-type mapping principles extend beyond evolutionarily conserved actions, even in people born without hands.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Matthias NauLaboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. m.nau@vu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0956-7815
Alexandra C SchmidLaboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Simon M KaplanDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Chris I Baker *Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. bakerchris@nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6861-8964
Dwight J Kravitz *Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. kravitzd@gwu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8108-1329

Funding

Object, face, body and scene representations in the human brainZIAMH002909 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI BAKER, CHRIS · 2009 to 2025
$25.5M
National Science Foundation (NSF) BCS2022572U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) ZIAMH002909
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive neuroscience seeks generalizable theories explaining the relationship between behavioral, physiological and mental states. In pursuit of such theories, we propose a theoretical and empirical framework that centers on understanding task demands and the mutual constraints they impose on behavior and neural activity. Task demands emerge from the interaction between an agent's sensory impressions, goals and behavior, which jointly shape the activity and structure of the nervous system on multiple spatiotemporal scales. Understanding this interaction requires multitask studies that vary more than one experimental component (for example, stimuli and instructions) combined with dense behavioral and neural sampling and explicit testing for generalization across tasks and data modalities. By centering task demands rather than mental processes that tasks are assumed to engage, this framework paves the way for the discovery of new generalizable concepts unconstrained by existing taxonomies, and moves cognitive neuroscience toward an action-oriented, dynamic and integrated view of the brain.

Indexed as

Cognitive NeuroscienceBrainCognitionGeneralization, PsychologicalHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.