Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39525361›Full record

ReviewRoyal Society open science2024

Ecological brain: reframing the study of human behaviour and cognition.

Gabriella Vigliocco, Laura Convertino, Sara De Felice, Lara Gregorians, Viktor Kewenig, Marie A E Mueller, Sebastijan Veselic, Mirco Musolesi, Andrew Hudson-Smith, Nicholas Tyler and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Understanding discourse in face-to-face settings: The impact of multimodal cues and listening conditions.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Gabriella ViglioccoLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7190-3659
Laura ConvertinoLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Sara De FeliceLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3065-3363
Lara GregoriansLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Viktor KewenigLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Marie A E MuellerLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Sebastijan VeselicLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Mirco MusolesiLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9712-4090
Andrew Hudson-SmithLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Nicholas TylerLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Eirini FlouriLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.
Hugo J SpiersLeverhulme Doctoral Training Programme for the Ecological Study of the Brain, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The last decade has seen substantial advances in the capacity to record behaviour and neural activity in humans in real-world settings, to simulate real-world situations in laboratory settings and to apply sophisticated analyses to large-scale data. Along with these developments, a growing number of groups has begun to advocate for real-world neuroscience and cognitive science. Here, we review the arguments and the available methods for real-world research and outline an overarching framework that embeds key ideas proposed in the literature integrating them into a cyclic process of 'bringing the lab to the real world' (recording behavioural and neural activity in real-world settings) and 'bringing the real-world to the lab' (manipulating the environments in which behaviours occur in the laboratory) that combines exploratory and confirmatory research and is interdisciplinary (including those sciences concerned with the natural, built or virtual environment). We highlight the benefits brought by this framework emphasizing the greater potential for novel discovery, theory development and human-centred applications to the environment.

Indexed as

brain functionsconfirmatory scienceecological validityexploratory sciencehuman behaviourreal-world cognitive sciencereal-world neuroscience

Identifiers

PMID39525361
PMCPMC11544371

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.