In our recent Review (Ross, L. N. & Bassett, D. S. Causation in neuroscience: keeping mechanism meaningful. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 25, 81–90; 2024)¹, we suggest that the term mechanism lacks a clear and consistent definition across neuroscientific research. We outline challenges associated with the myriad meanings of this term, which guides grant and publication acceptances and remains viewed as a fundamental unit for understanding the brain. In their Correspondence, Tseng and Cheng largely agree with these challenges and provide suggestions to move the field forwards (Tseng, P. & Cheng, T. Causal prominence for neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-024-00838-6; 2024)².

在我们最近的评论（Ross, LN & Bassett, DS 神经科学中的因果关系：保持机制有意义。Nat . Rev. Neurosci . 25 , 81–90; 2024） ^{1 中}，我们认为机制一词在整个神经科学领域缺乏明确且一致的定义研究。我们概述了与这个术语的无数含义相关的挑战，它指导着资助和出版物的接受，并且仍然被视为理解大脑的基本单位。在他们的通讯中，Tseng 和 Cheng 基本上同意这些挑战，并提供了推动该领域向前发展的建议（Tseng, P. & Cheng, T. Causal prominence for Neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci 。 https://doi.org/10.1038 /s41583-024-00838-6；2024) ² .