Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40324707›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2025

Active information sampling in health and disease.

Bahaaeddin Attaallah, Pierre Petitet, Masud Husain

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2025. 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. Working Memory Deficits in Hippocampal Amnesia are Associated with Apathy.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
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.

Bahaaeddin AttaallahNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK; Centre for Preventive Neurology, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK. Electronic address: Bahaaeddin.Attaallah@nhs.net.
Pierre PetitetDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PH, USA.
Masud HusainNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PH, USA.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 226645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Active information gathering is a fundamental cognitive process that enables organisms to navigate uncertainty and make adaptive decisions. Here we synthesise current knowledge on the behavioural, neural, and computational mechanisms underlying information sampling in healthy people and across several brain disorders. The role of cortical and subcortical regions spanning limbic, insular, fronto-parietal, and striatal systems is considered, along with the contributions of key neurotransmitters involving norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin. We also examine how various clinical conditions, including schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and Parkinson's disease have an impact on information gathering behaviours. To account for the findings, we outline a neuroeconomic perspective on how the brain may evaluate the costs and benefits of acquiring information to resolve uncertainty. This work highlights how active information gathering is a crucial brain process for adaptive behaviour in healthy individuals and how its breakdown is relevant to several psychiatric and neurological conditions. The findings have important implications for developing novel computational assays as well as targeted interventions in brain disorders.

Indexed as

BrainBrain DiseasesMental DisordersHumansDecision MakingHippocampusImpulsivityInformation GatheringNeurotransmittersUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID40324707
PMCPMC7618734

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.