Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27471451›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neural circuits2016

Discrepancies between Multi-Electrode LFP and CSD Phase-Patterns: A Forward Modeling Study.

Rikkert Hindriks, Xerxes D Arsiwalla, Theofanis Panagiotaropoulos, Michel Besserve, Paul F M J Verschure, Nikos K Logothetis, Gustavo Deco

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neural circuits, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Rikkert HindriksComputational Neuroscience Group, Department of Information, Center for Brain and Cognition Barcelona, Spain.
Xerxes D ArsiwallaSynthetic Perceptive Emotive and Cognitive Systems Lab, Center of Autonomous Systems and Neurorobotics, Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona, Spain.
Theofanis PanagiotaropoulosDepartment Physiology of Cognitive Processes, Max Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTubingen, Germany; Centre for Systems Neuroscience, University of LeicesterLeicester, UK; King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and NeuroscienceLondon, UK.
Michel BesserveDepartment Physiology of Cognitive Processes, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics Tubingen, Germany.
Paul F M J VerschureSynthetic Perceptive Emotive and Cognitive Systems Lab, Center of Autonomous Systems and Neurorobotics, Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelona, Spain; Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats (ICREA), Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelona, Spain.
Nikos K LogothetisDepartment Physiology of Cognitive Processes, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics Tubingen, Germany.
Gustavo DecoComputational Neuroscience Group, Department of Information, Center for Brain and CognitionBarcelona, Spain; Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats (ICREA), Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelona, Spain.
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics · DEBasque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language · ESPompeu Fabra University · ES

Funding

European Research Council 295129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-electrode recordings of local field potentials (LFPs) provide the opportunity to investigate the spatiotemporal organization of neural activity on the scale of several millimeters. In particular, the phases of oscillatory LFPs allow studying the coordination of neural oscillations in time and space and to tie it to cognitive processing. Given the computational roles of LFP phases, it is important to know how they relate to the phases of the underlying current source densities (CSDs) that generate them. Although CSDs and LFPs are distinct physical quantities, they are often (implicitly) identified when interpreting experimental observations. That this identification is problematic is clear from the fact that LFP phases change when switching to different electrode montages, while the underlying CSD phases remain unchanged. In this study we use a volume-conductor model to characterize discrepancies between LFP and CSD phase-patterns, to identify the contributing factors, and to assess the effect of different electrode montages. Although we focus on cortical LFPs recorded with two-dimensional (Utah) arrays, our findings are also relevant for other electrode configurations. We found that the main factors that determine the discrepancy between CSD and LFP phase-patterns are the frequency of the neural oscillations and the extent to which the laminar CSD profile is balanced. Furthermore, the presence of laminar phase-differences in cortical oscillations, as commonly observed in experiments, precludes identifying LFP phases with those of the CSD oscillations at a given cortical depth. This observation potentially complicates the interpretation of spike-LFP coherence and spike-triggered LFP averages. With respect to reference strategies, we found that the average-reference montage leads to larger discrepancies between LFP and CSD phases as compared with the referential montage, while the Laplacian montage reduces these discrepancies. We therefore advice to conduct analysis of two-dimensional LFP recordings using the Laplacian montage.

Indexed as

Electrophysiological PhenomenaModels, NeurologicalAnimalsCerebral CortexElectroencephalographyHumanscurrent source density (CSD)forward modelinglocal field potential (LFP)neural oscillationsphase-dynamicstraveling wavevolume conduction

Identifiers

PMID27471451
PMCPMC4945652
OpenAlexW2474011416

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.