ArticleBrain structure & function2025
Dynamic inferior olive activation in a cognitive task: an fMRI study.
Article in Brain structure & function, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How does the cerebellum contribute to cognitive functions?PLoS biology · 2026Review
- fMRI reveals brainstem and cortical networks contribute to the instruction-dependent modulation of stretch-evoked motor responses.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The inferior olive provides powerful inputs to the cerebellum hypothesized to support cerebellar learning and error detection. Given cerebellar involvement in verbal working memory and the close interplay with the inferior olive, the inferior olive is likely also involved in verbal working memory. In order to elucidate the inferior olive's role in verbal working memory, we utilized an MRI-based Sternberg verbal working memory task which involved learning novel vs repeated sequences. As hypothesized, inferior olive activation was stronger during encoding and retrieval compared to maintenance, especially for novel compared to repeated sequences, indicative of diminished inferior olive activity with stimulus repetition. Results also revealed differential inferior olive activation during retrieval, with increased activation on matching probes for novel and on non-matching probes for repeated sequences. This underlines the crucial role of the inferior olive in novel information encoding and error feedback, and that conditions triggering strong inferior olive responses can change as a function of novelty.
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.