Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22841630›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2012

How many neurons can we see with current spike sorting algorithms?

Carlos Pedreira, Juan Martinez, Matias J Ison, Rodrigo Quian Quiroga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Carlos PedreiraDepartment of Engineering, University of Leicester, UK. cp155@le.ac.uk
Juan Martinez
Matias J Ison
Rodrigo Quian Quiroga

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H014047/1Medical Research Council G0701038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies highlighted the disagreement between the typical number of neurons observed with extracellular recordings and the ones to be expected based on anatomical and physiological considerations. This disagreement has been mainly attributed to the presence of sparsely firing neurons. However, it is also possible that this is due to limitations of the spike sorting algorithms used to process the data. To address this issue, we used realistic simulations of extracellular recordings and found a relatively poor spike sorting performance for simulations containing a large number of neurons. In fact, the number of correctly identified neurons for single-channel recordings showed an asymptotic behavior saturating at about 8-10 units, when up to 20 units were present in the data. This performance was significantly poorer for neurons with low firing rates, as these units were twice more likely to be missed than the ones with high firing rates in simulations containing many neurons. These results uncover one of the main reasons for the relatively low number of neurons found in extracellular recording and also stress the importance of further developments of spike sorting algorithms.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCell CountComputer SimulationDatabases, FactualElectrophysiological PhenomenaExtracellular SpaceFalse Positive ReactionsMicroelectrodesNeurons

Identifiers

PMID22841630
PMCPMC3657693

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.