Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24187539›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2013

Physical principles for scalable neural recording.

Adam H Marblestone, Bradley M Zamft, Yael G Maguire, Mikhail G Shapiro, Thaddeus R Cybulski, Joshua I Glaser, Dario Amodei, P Benjamin Stranges, Reza Kalhor, David A Dalrymple and 8 more

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 116 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing 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

116 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Ionic-Bionic Interfaces: Advancing Iontronic Strategies for Bioelectronic Sensing and Therapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Capturing the Electrical Activity of all Cortical Neurons: Are Solutions Within Reach?Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. A 1024-Channel 268 nW/pixel 36×36IEEE journal of solid-state circuits · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

56 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

18 authors.

Adam H MarblestoneBiophysics Program, Harvard University Boston, MA, USA ; Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University Boston, MA, USA.
Bradley M Zamft
Yael G Maguire
Mikhail G Shapiro
Thaddeus R Cybulski
Joshua I Glaser
Dario Amodei
P Benjamin Stranges
Reza Kalhor
David A Dalrymple
Dongjin Seo
Elad Alon
Michel M Maharbiz
Jose M Carmena
Jan M Rabaey
Edward S Boyden
George M Church
Konrad P Kording

Funding

Multidisciplinary Clinical and Translational Science (MCTS) Program (UL1)UL1TR000150 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI LLOYD-JONES, DONALD M · 2012 to 2013
$10.1M
Millisecond-Timescale Whole-Brain Neural Activity Mapping in Health and DiseaseDP1NS087724 · NINDS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI BOYDEN, EDWARD S. · 2013 to 2017
$3.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000150NINDS NIH HHS DP1 NS087724
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simultaneously measuring the activities of all neurons in a mammalian brain at millisecond resolution is a challenge beyond the limits of existing techniques in neuroscience. Entirely new approaches may be required, motivating an analysis of the fundamental physical constraints on the problem. We outline the physical principles governing brain activity mapping using optical, electrical, magnetic resonance, and molecular modalities of neural recording. Focusing on the mouse brain, we analyze the scalability of each method, concentrating on the limitations imposed by spatiotemporal resolution, energy dissipation, and volume displacement. Based on this analysis, all existing approaches require orders of magnitude improvement in key parameters. Electrical recording is limited by the low multiplexing capacity of electrodes and their lack of intrinsic spatial resolution, optical methods are constrained by the scattering of visible light in brain tissue, magnetic resonance is hindered by the diffusion and relaxation timescales of water protons, and the implementation of molecular recording is complicated by the stochastic kinetics of enzymes. Understanding the physical limits of brain activity mapping may provide insight into opportunities for novel solutions. For example, unconventional methods for delivering electrodes may enable unprecedented numbers of recording sites, embedded optical devices could allow optical detectors to be placed within a few scattering lengths of the measured neurons, and new classes of molecularly engineered sensors might obviate cumbersome hardware architectures. We also study the physics of powering and communicating with microscale devices embedded in brain tissue and find that, while radio-frequency electromagnetic data transmission suffers from a severe power-bandwidth tradeoff, communication via infrared light or ultrasound may allow high data rates due to the possibility of spatial multiplexing. The use of embedded local recording and wireless data transmission would only be viable, however, given major improvements to the power efficiency of microelectronic devices.

Indexed as

brain activity mappingelectrical recordingembedded electronicsmagnetic resonance imagingmolecular recordingneural recordingoptical methods

Identifiers

PMID24187539
PMCPMC3807567

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.