Version history

{
  "scope": "recurrent network models compared to monkey PFC delayed-discrimination data",
  "claim_text": "When compared with monkey PFC vibrotactile delayed-discrimination data, a randomly connected chaotic recurrent network performs the task and matches certain aspects of the data 'surprisingly' well, comparing favorably with a fine-tuned line-attractor model.",
  "raw_fields": {
    "n": 0,
    "doi": "10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.02.002",
    "claim": "When compared with monkey PFC vibrotactile delayed-discrimination data, a randomly connected chaotic recurrent network performs the task and matches certain aspects of the data 'surprisingly' well, comparing favorably with a fine-tuned line-attractor model.",
    "cite_key": "Barak2013",
    "evidence": "Comparison of three classes of recurrent-network model (organized line attractor, partially trained, random chaotic) against monkey PFC vibrotactile delayed-discrimination data.",
    "effect_size": "qualitative",
    "text_access": "abstract_only",
    "study_system": "recurrent network models compared to monkey PFC delayed-discrimination data",
    "argument_role": "supporting",
    "replication_status": "contested",
    "claim_source_sentence": "The random network does a surprisingly good job of both performing the task and matching certain aspects of the data.",
    "source_provenance_status": "non_substring_match",
    "replication_evidence_dois": [
      "10.1038/nn.3645",
      "10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.024"
    ],
    "effect_size_source_sentence": null
  },
  "section_id": "section_13",
  "source_url": "https://github.com/AllenNeuralDynamics/ComputationalReviewRecurrence/blob/79ce062d54a924ce05953ec90aa9d26044d2b48f/evidence/section_13_evidence_package.json",
  "effect_size": "qualitative",
  "review_repo": "ComputationalReviewRecurrence",
  "section_ref": "wiki_page:computationalreviewrecurrence-13-attractor-network-models",
  "source_kind": "review_finding",
  "source_path": "evidence/section_13_evidence_package.json",
  "source_refs": [
    "paper:paper-d24fadcbece7"
  ],
  "source_span": "The random network does a surprisingly good job of both performing the task and matching certain aspects of the data.",
  "study_system": "recurrent network models compared to monkey PFC delayed-discrimination data",
  "evidence_refs": [
    {
      "ref": "paper:paper-d24fadcbece7"
    }
  ],
  "section_title": "13. Attractor-network models — Hopfield, ring, line, bump; what each model requires of the cortical E→E matrix and what the mouse empirical record provides",
  "source_policy": {
    "mode": "public_source_pointer_with_short_context",
    "notes": [
      "Local review repositories are read-only inputs.",
      "SciDEX stores paper metadata, structured evidence, file pointers, and short citation contexts; it does not copy full review prose."
    ],
    "source_commit_sha": "79ce062d54a924ce05953ec90aa9d26044d2b48f",
    "source_repository_url": "https://github.com/AllenNeuralDynamics/ComputationalReviewRecurrence"
  },
  "evidence_summary": "Comparison of three classes of recurrent-network model (organized line attractor, partially trained, random chaotic) against monkey PFC vibrotactile delayed-discrimination data.",
  "review_bundle_ref": "analysis_bundle:ab-d9c479db9be9",
  "replication_status": "contested",
  "review_package_ref": "analysis_bundle:ab-d9c479db9be9",
  "source_artifact_ref": "wiki_page:computationalreviewrecurrence-13-attractor-network-models",
  "origin_url": "https://github.com/AllenNeuralDynamics/ComputationalReviewRecurrence/blob/79ce062d54a924ce05953ec90aa9d26044d2b48f/evidence/section_13_evidence_package.json",
  "commit_sha": "79ce062d54a924ce05953ec90aa9d26044d2b48f",
  "created_by": "persona-jerome-lecoq-gbo-neuroscience",
  "repository_url": "https://github.com/AllenNeuralDynamics/ComputationalReviewRecurrence"
}