ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science
Theory Change in Cognitive Neurobiology: The Case of the Orbitofrontal Cortex.
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
How do theories of the functions of parts of the brain change? I argue that computational hypotheses help explain the nature of theorizing in cognitive neurobiology. I will focus on the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), a frontal region of the brain implicated in an array of cognitive functions. Different theories of OFC state different principles of OFC function and use different concepts to construct those principles. There are also differences in the patterns of use of evidence across different theories. I briefly survey several extant proposals for understanding theory change in science generally and cognitive neuroscience specifically, including paradigm shifts, tool innovation, mechanism discovery, conceptual innovation, exploratory experimentation, and changes in measurement techniques. While these extant approaches fall short at describing the nature of theory change illustrated by the case of OFC, they are compatible with my proposal that these theoretical changes and differences in the use of evidence result from different computational hypotheses about the region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.