ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2011
Spatiotemporal scales and links between electrical neuroimaging modalities.
Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeling the effect of dendritic input location on MEG and EEG source dipoles.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2015Article
- Hypothesizing the body's genius to trigger and self-organize its healing: 25 years using a standardized neurophysics therapy.Frontiers in physiology · 2013Article
- Neurodynamic measures of functional connectivity and cognition.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recordings of brain electrophysiological activity provide the most direct reflect of neural function. Information contained in these signals varies as a function of the spatial scale at which recordings are done: from single cell recording to large scale macroscopic fields, e.g., scalp EEG. Microscopic and macroscopic measurements and models in Neuroscience are often in conflict. Solving this conflict might require the developments of a sort of bio-statistical physics, a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual cells to the macroscopic or bulk properties of neural circuits. Such a framework can only emerge in Neuroscience from the systematic analysis and modeling of the diverse recording scales from simultaneous measurements. In this article we briefly review the different measurement scales and models in modern neuroscience to try to identify the sources of conflict that might ultimately help to create a unified theory of brain electromagnetic fields. We argue that seen the different recording scales, from the single cell to the large scale fields measured by the scalp electroencephalogram, as derived from a unique physical magnitude--the electric potential that is measured in all cases--might help to conciliate microscopic and macroscopic models of neural function as well as the animal and human neuroscience literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.