Neural underpinnings of the evidence accumulator

Brody, Hanks · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · 2016 · neuroscience · 10.1016/j.conb.2016.01.003 · record Brody2016-neural-underpinnings-of-the-evidence-accumul
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (xml); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type could arguably be 'null-result' — the pivotal finding it reports is that 'Quotation withheld [ 53 ].' — but as a review its own contribution is the case against PPC as the accumulator, hence 'critique'. Claim relations is deliberately thin: the review's explicit disagreements (e.g. with the 1-to-1 PPC-accumulator proposal, and the retraction of its own serial PPC→FOF model in 'Quotation withheld') are either self-directed or supported only by bare numeric citations, so per the rules they were not recorded as relations. Replication status is 'contested' because the review documents PPC inactivation impairing rodent visual, but not auditory, accumulation tasks. 2026-08-12, 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-15 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

5 quotations on this page contain a reference number where the paper printed a superscript. This journal style prints citations as raised numerals — parameters^12,13 — and the extraction flattened them into the line, so the sentence reads parameters 12 , 13 . The digits are citation markers and not part of what the author wrote. The quotes keep them for the same reason they keep every other extraction fault: a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing.

This record’s own method is review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 19 concept tags on this paper, 2 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 17 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

evidence accumulation decision boundary posterior parietal cortex frontal orienting fields lateral intraparietal frontal eye fields random dot motion Poisson clicks tuning curves microstimulation optogenetic inactivation eNpHR3.0 ramping secondary visual cortex causal circuit redundant circuit click-triggered average PPC accumulation of evidence When evidence is weak the accumulator drifts only slowly away from the decision boundary, so it takes longer to establish which side it is on, which is why difficult decisions are slow. FOF acts downstream of accumulation, categorizing the accumulator's value into a choice, which is why its activity is required near the go cue rather than throughout the stimulus. Discrepant PPC inactivation results across rodent visual tasks may arise because the inactivation spreads beyond PPC into neighbouring small secondary visual areas that supply sensory input. tuning curve initial criteria Poisson clicks task review

Legend

second reading	`alternatives`	an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees
relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2016.01.003. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 2 · claim_relations 5 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 10 · concepts 2 · content_tags 25 · limitations 9 · mechanisms 9 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 6

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 1 of 10 relations here carries that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	Which brain regions actually compute the gradual accumulation of evidence, as opposed to merely representing its value. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
claim_type	critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	gradual accumulation of evidence in perceptual decision-making Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: When evidence is weak the accumulator drifts only slowly away from the decision boundary, so it takes longer to establish which side it is on, which is why difficult decisions are slow.	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: FOF acts downstream of accumulation, categorizing the accumulator's value into a choice, which is why its activity is required near the go cue rather than throughout the stimulus.	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Discrepant PPC inactivation results across rodent visual tasks may arise because the inactivation spreads beyond PPC into neighbouring small secondary visual areas that supply sensory input.	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Encoding was inferred from ramping firing rates that rise faster on easy trials than hard ones, exactly as the accumulator model predicts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Tuning curves separate two regions that look alike in averages: one reads out the graded value, the other a categorical side of the boundary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	A region can be required at a specific moment rather than throughout, which optogenetic timing can test and lesions cannot Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Microstimulation cannot localise its own effect, because it acts largely on axons passing through rather than on the cells at the site Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[6]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	The proposed test for circuit membership is three conditions at once - inactivation matters, it matters during the accumulation window specifically, and the graded value is encoded there Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[7]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Where a label's boundaries are uncertain, an inactivation aimed at one region may be silencing its neighbour, which would reconcile the conflicting results across species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[8]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The review restricts itself to two-alternative decisions and excludes human work. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the scope of the review: WE LIMIT OURSELVES TO TWO-ALTERNATIVE DECISIONS ... AND WILL NOT ADDRESS WORK IN HUMANS	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Whether rats and primates in fact use the same circuits and algorithms for accumulation is inferred from similar ramping responses and is not established. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the rat-to-primate inference: WHETHER THIS IS INDEED THE CASE REMAINS AN OPEN QUESTION	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Because the anatomical border of rodent PPC with adjacent small V2 areas is still uncertain, inactivation effects attributed to PPC may reflect spillover into V2. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every inactivation result attributed to rodent PPC: THE PRECISE DEFINITION OF RODENT PPC AND THE LOCATION OF ITS BORDER WITH THESE V2 AREAS [is] STILL HIGHLY UNCERTAIN AND A MATTER OF ACTIVE RESEARCH	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The authors report that their own earlier serial model of the two regions was wrong Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the authors' own earlier account: AS WE DESCRIBE BELOW, THIS SERIAL MODEL TURNED OUT TO BE WRONG	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Neither of the two candidate regions satisfies the criteria the authors themselves propose Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the two candidate regions against the review's own test: NEITHER THE FOF NOR THE PPC SATISFY ALL THREE CRITERIA	`limitations[4]`		the tagger's words
limitations	A negative inactivation result cannot rule out a redundant circuit in which no single region is required Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the negative inactivation results: the PPC COULD, PERHAPS, PLAY A ROLE ... AS PART OF A MUCH LARGER REDUNDANT CIRCUIT, which a null cannot exclude	`limitations[5]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The region name itself is unsettled, so results labelled PPC may not concern the same tissue across studies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the comparability of PPC results across studies: FURTHER CLARITY ... WILL GREATLY BENEFIT FROM BETTER DEFINITIONS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF BRAIN REGIONS NEAR THE LOCATION CURRENTLY REFERRED TO AS RODENT PPC	`limitations[6]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Several of the supporting results are unpublished data from the authors' own laboratory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: several supporting claims: they rest on unpublished data from the authors' own laboratory	`limitations[7]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The causal evidence in primates rests on three microstimulation studies, all with the confound the authors name Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the causal evidence for these areas in primates: ONLY THREE EXISTING PUBLISHED STUDIES, ALL USING ONLY UNILATERAL ELECTRICAL MICROSTIMULATION	`limitations[8]`		the tagger's words
concepts	PPC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: PPC	`concepts[17]`		the paper's words
concepts	accumulation of evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accumulation of evidence	`concepts[18]`		the paper's words
senses	a region's involvement - ENCODING: the accumulator's graded value can be read out of its firing, which PPC satisfies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	a region's involvement - CAUSAL: silencing it changes behaviour, which PPC does not satisfy despite encoding the value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	necessity - AT ALL: silencing the region changes performance, criterion one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	necessity - AT THE RIGHT TIME: silencing during the accumulation window specifically changes performance, criterion two, which separates accumulating from reading out Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	PPC - as a name for tissue defined by location, which differs across labs and species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	PPC - as a name the authors propose reserving for tissue defined by function and connectivity, including the very null result at issue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
alternatives	claim_type: critique Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: critique — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.claim_type`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: gradual accumulation of evidence in perceptual decision-making Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: gradual accumulation of evidence in perceptual decision-making — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Brunton et al. (Poisson clicks rat task) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → the proposal of a one-to-one relationship between parietal firing rates and the accumulator value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → microstimulation as a means of localising causal contributions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → the authors' own earlier serial model in which PPC computes the accumulator and FOF reads it out Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[3]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Brunton et al.'s rat Poisson clicks model of accumulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	posterior parietal cortex —distinct-from→ evidence accumulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the PPC 'MAY play little to no role' in accumulation; distinct-from is hedged. also in: posterior parietal cortex · evidence accumulation	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	ramping —operationalised-as→ evidence accumulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span proposes a 1-to-1 relation between PPC firing and the accumulator; operationalised-as is loose. also in: ramping · evidence accumulation	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	frontal orienting fields —causes→ decision boundary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span 'SUGGESTS' the FOF categorizes the accumulator's value to drive the choice; causes is hedged. also in: frontal orienting fields · decision boundary	`concept_edges[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	eNpHR3.0 —operationalised-as→ optogenetic inactivation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but eNpHR3.0 is the TOOL used for optogenetic inactivation; operationalised-as is loose. also in: eNpHR3.0 · optogenetic inactivation	`concept_edges[5]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	RETRACTED (NEITHER ENDPOINT IS IN THE SPAN, AND THE RELATION IS HEDGED THREE TIMES) · frontal orienting fields —same-as→ frontal eye fields Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. RETRACTED: NEITHER ENDPOINT IS IN THE SPAN, AND THE RELATION IS HEDGED THREE TIMES. The edge is 'frontal orienting fields --same-as--> frontal eye fields'. The span: 'HAD BEEN SUGGESTED…' The span names 'PPC' and 'FEF'; it does not contain either endpoint name as words at all - the endpoints were supplied from the tagger's vocabulary, THE SAME FAULT AS Gelbard-Sagiv2008's absent 'reactivation'. This edge PREDATES the gate check and could not be written today. On top of that: 'suggested as', 'analogous', and 'perhaps even' are three hedges in eleven words, and 'respectively' means the sentence maps TWO pairs at once, so even the intended relation is half of a two-way mapping. — strength of the relation: 0.7 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the FOF was SUGGESTED as analogous or perhaps homologous to the FEF; same-as is hedged. also in: frontal orienting fields · frontal eye fields	`concept_edges[7]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	lateral intraparietal —part-of→ posterior parietal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: lateral intraparietal · posterior parietal cortex	`concept_edges[8]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	secondary visual cortex —distinct-from→ posterior parietal cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but secondary visual cortex lies immediately POSTERIOR TO the PPC; distinct-from is loose. also in: secondary visual cortex · posterior parietal cortex	`concept_edges[9]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	click-triggered average —part-of→ Poisson clicks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the click-triggered average is an analysis OF responses to single clicks; part-of is loose. also in: click-triggered average · Poisson clicks	`concept_edges[11]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	decision boundary —part-of→ evidence accumulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'this model' = accumulation of evidence (previous sentence); part-of is loose. also in: decision boundary · evidence accumulation	`concept_edges[12]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	PPC —distinct-from→ accumulation of evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: RE-GROUNDS the record's 'posterior parietal cortex --distinct-from--> evidence accumulation'. The SPAN was always right; the ENDPOINT NAMES did not match its words. 'normalised' maps the abbreviation and the paper's phrasing onto the existing concepts. · the relation stated: the region ENCODES the accumulator's value yet is dispensable for decisions that use it Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the PPC 'MAY play little to no role' in accumulation; distinct-from is hedged. also in: PPC · accumulation of evidence	`concept_edges[13]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Contrary to expectations, inactivating rat PPC had negligible effects on Poisson Clicks performance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors conclude that PPC is the least likely of the regions examined to be a genuine node of the accumulation circuit. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The serial account in which PPC computes the accumulator and hands it to FOF was falsified by the perturbation results. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Frontal orienting fields carry a categorical, step-like read-out of which side of the decision boundary the accumulator is on, rather than its graded value. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Unpublished data suggest at least one subcortical region appears to meet all three criteria and may become the first identified node of the causal accumulation circuit. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors propose a nomenclature reform, restricting the label 'rodent PPC' to tissue whose physiology and connectivity match primate PPC. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	silencing parietal cortex had, against expectations, negligible effects on task performance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	the same inactivations did affect interspersed free-choice trials, so the manipulation itself worked Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	parietal cortex is the only region whose silencing leaves task behaviour unaffected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	tuning curves were smooth graded functions of accumulator value in PPC but step-like in FOF Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	the mapping from accumulator value to firing rate stays fixed across the trial even as the value changes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	neither candidate region satisfies all three of the authors' criteria for causal circuit membership Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[11]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	evidence accumulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: evidence accumulation	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	decision boundary Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: decision boundary	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	tuning curve Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tuning curve	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	initial criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: initial criteria	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Poisson clicks task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Poisson clicks task	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	secondary visual cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: secondary visual cortex	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	tuning curves Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tuning curves	`content_tags.definitions[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	three — number of published causal perturbation studies of accumulation-related areas in the primate random-dot-motion task at the time of writing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	6 — number of rat brain regions whose silencing had been tested on the Poisson Clicks task, of which only PPC showed no behavioural impact Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	50 — illustrative number of trained subjects needed to deploy a new perturbation technique, used to argue that rodents make perturbation work feasible Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	three initial criteria — the proposed test for whether a region belongs to the causal circuit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	6 different rat regions — how many have been silenced, of which only one showed no effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	only three existing published studies — the entire causal literature on these primate regions in this task, all by one method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.