Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23755005›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2013

Neural masses and fields in dynamic causal modeling.

Rosalyn Moran, Dimitris A Pinotsis, Karl Friston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing 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

136 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. GABA-ergic Dynamics in Human Frontotemporal Networks Confirmed by Pharmaco-Magnetoencephalography.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ephaptic coupling and power fluctuations in depression.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Rosalyn MoranWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London London, UK ; Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Virginia Tech Roanoke, VA, USA ; Bradley Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Dimitris A Pinotsis
Karl Friston

Funding

Wellcome Trust 088130Wellcome Trust 091593
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dynamic causal modeling (DCM) provides a framework for the analysis of effective connectivity among neuronal subpopulations that subtend invasive (electrocorticograms and local field potentials) and non-invasive (electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography) electrophysiological responses. This paper reviews the suite of neuronal population models including neural masses, fields and conductance-based models that are used in DCM. These models are expressed in terms of sets of differential equations that allow one to model the synaptic underpinnings of connectivity. We describe early developments using neural mass models, where convolution-based dynamics are used to generate responses in laminar-specific populations of excitatory and inhibitory cells. We show that these models, though resting on only two simple transforms, can recapitulate the characteristics of both evoked and spectral responses observed empirically. Using an identical neuronal architecture, we show that a set of conductance based models-that consider the dynamics of specific ion-channels-present a richer space of responses; owing to non-linear interactions between conductances and membrane potentials. We propose that conductance-based models may be more appropriate when spectra present with multiple resonances. Finally, we outline a third class of models, where each neuronal subpopulation is treated as a field; in other words, as a manifold on the cortical surface. By explicitly accounting for the spatial propagation of cortical activity through partial differential equations (PDEs), we show that the topology of connectivity-through local lateral interactions among cortical layers-may be inferred, even in the absence of spatially resolved data. We also show that these models allow for a detailed analysis of structure-function relationships in the cortex. Our review highlights the relationship among these models and how the hypothesis asked of empirical data suggests an appropriate model class.

Indexed as

dynamic causal modelingelectroencephalographylocal field potential (LFP)magnetoencephalography (MEG)neural mass models

Identifiers

PMID23755005
PMCPMC3664834

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.