ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2017
Magnitude and behavior of cross-talk effects in multichannel electrophysiology experiments.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection and Removal of Hyper-synchronous Artifacts in Massively Parallel Spike Recordings.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Bridging circuit modeling and signal analysis to understand the risk of crosstalk contamination in brain recordings.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Overcoming failure: improving acceptance and success of implanted neural interfaces.Bioelectronic medicine · 2025Review
- Parasitic Capacitance in High-Density Neural Electrode Arrays: Sources and Evaluation Methods.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025Article
- Flexible circumferential bioelectronics to enable 360-degree recording and stimulation of the spinal cord.Science advances · 2024Article
- Decrease in reaction time for volleyball athletes during saccadic eye movement task: A preliminary study with evoked potentials.PloS one · 2024Article
- Extracellular and intracellular components of the impedance of neural tissue.Biophysical journal · 2022Article
- Suppression of crosstalk in multielectrode arrays with local shielding.Frontiers in nanotechnology · 2022Article
- Attention Detection in Virtual Environments Using EEG Signals: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Unveiling the Synaptic Function and Structure Using Paired Recordings From Synaptically Coupled Neurons.Frontiers in synaptic neuroscience · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Modern neurophysiological experiments frequently involve multiple channels separated by very small distances. A unique methodological concern for multiple-electrode experiments is that of capacitive coupling (cross-talk) between channels. Yet the nature of the cross-talk recording circuit is not well known in the field, and the extent to which it practically affects neurophysiology experiments has never been fully investigated. Here we describe a simple electrical circuit model of simultaneous recording and stimulation with two or more channels and experimentally verify the model using ex vivo brain slice and in vivo whole-brain preparations. In agreement with the model, we find that cross-talk amplitudes increase nearly linearly with the impedance of a recording electrode and are larger for higher frequencies. We demonstrate cross-talk contamination of action potential waveforms from intracellular to extracellular channels, which is observable in part because of the different orders of magnitude between the channels. This contamination is electrode impedance-dependent and matches predictions from the model. We use recently published parameters to simulate cross-talk in high-density multichannel extracellular recordings. Cross-talk effectively spatially smooths current source density (CSD) estimates in these recordings and induces artefactual phase shifts where underlying voltage gradients occur; however, these effects are modest. We show that the effects of cross-talk are unlikely to affect most conclusions inferred from neurophysiology experiments when both originating and receiving electrode record signals of similar magnitudes. We discuss other types of experiments and analyses that may be susceptible to cross-talk, techniques for detecting and experimentally reducing cross-talk, and implications for high-density probe design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.