Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27445842›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2016

Analysis of Power Laws, Shape Collapses, and Neural Complexity: New Techniques and MATLAB Support via the NCC Toolbox.

Najja Marshall, Nicholas M Timme, Nicholas Bennett, Monica Ripp, Edward Lautzenhiser, John M Beggs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Genetic contributions to brain criticality and its relationship with human cognitive functions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. On the Structure of the Intermittency of Rainfall.Water resources management (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2023
    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

6 authors.

Najja MarshallDepartment of Neuroscience, Columbia University New York, NY, USA.
Nicholas M TimmeDepartment of Psychology, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Nicholas BennettDepartment of Physics, Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA.
Monica RippDepartment of Physics, Syracuse University Syracuse, NY, USA.
Edward LautzenhiserDepartment of Physics, Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA.
John M BeggsDepartment of Physics, Indiana UniversityBloomington, IN, USA; Biocomplexity Institute, Indiana UniversityBloomington, IN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural systems include interactions that occur across many scales. Two divergent methods for characterizing such interactions have drawn on the physical analysis of critical phenomena and the mathematical study of information. Inferring criticality in neural systems has traditionally rested on fitting power laws to the property distributions of "neural avalanches" (contiguous bursts of activity), but the fractal nature of avalanche shapes has recently emerged as another signature of criticality. On the other hand, neural complexity, an information theoretic measure, has been used to capture the interplay between the functional localization of brain regions and their integration for higher cognitive functions. Unfortunately, treatments of all three methods-power-law fitting, avalanche shape collapse, and neural complexity-have suffered from shortcomings. Empirical data often contain biases that introduce deviations from true power law in the tail and head of the distribution, but deviations in the tail have often been unconsidered; avalanche shape collapse has required manual parameter tuning; and the estimation of neural complexity has relied on small data sets or statistical assumptions for the sake of computational efficiency. In this paper we present technical advancements in the analysis of criticality and complexity in neural systems. We use maximum-likelihood estimation to automatically fit power laws with left and right cutoffs, present the first automated shape collapse algorithm, and describe new techniques to account for large numbers of neural variables and small data sets in the calculation of neural complexity. In order to facilitate future research in criticality and complexity, we have made the software utilized in this analysis freely available online in the MATLAB NCC (Neural Complexity and Criticality) Toolbox.

Indexed as

information theoryMATLABneural avalancheneural complexityneural criticalitypower lawshape collapse

Identifiers

PMID27445842
PMCPMC4921690

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.