ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2026
Clarifying the conceptual dimensions of representation in neuroscience.
Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to 'Boundary issues for multidimensional frameworks of representation'.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Boundary issues for multidimensional frameworks of representation.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Generative AI as a transformational logic for cognitive neuroscience.Communications biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the centrality of the notion of representation in neuroscience, the field lacks a unified framework for the concepts used to characterize representation, leading to disparate use of both terminology and the measures associated with it. To offer clarification, we propose a core set of conceptual dimensions that characterize representations in neuroscience. These dimensions describe relations between a neural response, features that may be represented and downstream effects of the neural response. A neural response may be shown to be sensitive or specific to a feature, invariant to other features or functional (it is used downstream in the brain). We use information-theoretic measures to illustrate these conceptual dimensions and explain how they relate to data analysis methods such as correlational analyses, decoding and encoding models, representational similarity analysis, and tests of statistical dependence or adaptation. We consider several canonical examples, including models of the representation of orientation, numerosity and spatial location, which illustrate how the evidence put forth in support or criticism of these models is systematized by our framework. By offering a unified conceptual framework to characterize representation in neuroscience, we hope to aid the comparison and integration of results across studies and research groups and to help to determine when evidence for a neural representation is strong.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41862588What 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.