Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42010869›Full record

ReviewThe European journal of neuroscience2026

Reductionism in Engram Neuroscience.

Caitlin Mace, Fionn O'Sullivan, Scott R Wilson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The European journal of neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Reductionism in Engram Neuroscience.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Caitlin MaceUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0581-3022
Fionn O'SullivanTrinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Scott R WilsonUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engrams are a hypothetical construct in neuroscience used to explain memory phenomena. The search for engrams has been energised by the advent of certain reductionist methods that intervene at lower levels of organisation. We defend methodological reductionism as an essential research strategy but argue that such methods alone are insufficient for a complete explanation of memory. Relying solely on these methods perpetuates a field that is data-rich but understanding-poor. Explanations in memory neuroscience require theorising about engrams and the conditions for their discovery. This can be facilitated by an integrative pluralism, by which multiple competing models of causal processes are integrated within a broader theoretical framework. We propose that conceiving of engrams as multiply-realisable, causal motifs-not the standard conceit of a stable, physical entity-is essential for a complete explanation of memory phenomena. As such, methodological reductionism and explanatory integrative pluralism are important conceptual tools in the neuroscientist's toolkit.

Indexed as

BrainMemoryModels, NeurologicalNeurosciencesAnimalsHumansexplanationmemory engramsmethodologyreductionism

Identifiers

PMID42010869
PMCPMC13096671

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.