Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27098024›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2016

A comparison of computational methods for detecting bursts in neuronal spike trains and their application to human stem cell-derived neuronal networks.

Ellese Cotterill, Paul Charlesworth, Christopher W Thomas, Ole Paulsen, Stephen J Eglen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Representation of bulk water flow in the goldfish (Carassius auratus) midbrain.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Ellese CotterillCambridge Computational Biology Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; and ec526@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4760-9748
Paul CharlesworthDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, Physiological Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Christopher W ThomasDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, Physiological Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Ole PaulsenDepartment of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, Physiological Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Stephen J EglenCambridge Computational Biology Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; and.ORCID 0000-0001-8607-8025

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H008608/1Wellcome Trust 093875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate identification of bursting activity is an essential element in the characterization of neuronal network activity. Despite this, no one technique for identifying bursts in spike trains has been widely adopted. Instead, many methods have been developed for the analysis of bursting activity, often on an ad hoc basis. Here we provide an unbiased assessment of the effectiveness of eight of these methods at detecting bursts in a range of spike trains. We suggest a list of features that an ideal burst detection technique should possess and use synthetic data to assess each method in regard to these properties. We further employ each of the methods to reanalyze microelectrode array (MEA) recordings from mouse retinal ganglion cells and examine their coherence with bursts detected by a human observer. We show that several common burst detection techniques perform poorly at analyzing spike trains with a variety of properties. We identify four promising burst detection techniques, which are then applied to MEA recordings of networks of human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived neurons and used to describe the ontogeny of bursting activity in these networks over several months of development. We conclude that no current method can provide "perfect" burst detection results across a range of spike trains; however, two burst detection techniques, the MaxInterval and logISI methods, outperform compared with others. We provide recommendations for the robust analysis of bursting activity in experimental recordings using current techniques.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAction PotentialsAnimalsCell DifferentiationHumansModels, StatisticalNerve NetNeuronsPluripotent Stem Cellsburstscomputational methodsdevelopmentspike trainsstem cells

Identifiers

PMID27098024
PMCPMC4969396

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.