ArticleBasic and clinical neuroscience2014
Evaluation of Phase Locking and Cross Correlation Methods for Estimating the Time Lag between Brain Sites: A Simulation Approach.
Article in Basic and clinical neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Stimulus Rate and Periodicity on Auditory Cortical Entrainment to Continuous Sounds.eNeuro · 2024Article
- Age of Acquisition Effect: Evidence From Single-Word Reading and Neural Networks.Basic and clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDirection and latency of electrical connectivity between different sites of brain explains brain neural functionality. We compared efficiency of cross correlation and phase locking methods in time lag estimation which are based on local field potential (LFP) and LFP-spike signals, respectively.
methodsSignals recorded from MT area of a macaque's brain was used in a simulation approach. The first signal was real brain activity and the second was identical to the first one, but with two kinds of delayed and not delayed forms. Time lag between two signals was estimated by cross correlation and phase locking methods.
resultsBoth methods estimated the time lags with no errors. Phase locking was not as time efficient as correlation. In addition, phase locking suffered from temporal self bias. DISCUSSION: Correlation was a more efficient method. Phase locking was not considered as a proper method to estimate the time lags between brain sites due to time inefficiency and self bias, the problems which are reported for the first time about this method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25337381PMC4202548W323927580What 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.