ArticleNeuroImage2018
Detection of neural light-scattering activity in vivo: optical transmittance studies in the rat brain.
Article in NeuroImage, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitivity factors for diffuse optics - derivation of equations for finite changes.Biomedical optics express · 2026Article
- Laser speckle imaging of the hippocampus.Biomedical optics express · 2024Article
- Disentangling the impact of cerebrospinal fluid formation and neuronal activity on solute clearance from the brain.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2023Article
- Contribution of animal models toward understanding resting state functional connectivity.NeuroImage · 2021Review
- Emerging imaging methods to study whole-brain function in rodent models.Translational psychiatry · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Optical studies of ex vivo brain slices where blood is absent show that neural activity is accompanied by significant intrinsic optical signals (IOS) related to activity-dependent scattering changes in neural tissue. However, the neural scattering signals have been largely ignored in vivo in widely-used IOS methods where absorption contrast from hemoglobin was employed. Changes in scattering were observed on a time scale of seconds in previous brain slice IOS studies, similar to the time scale for the hemodynamic response. Therefore, potential crosstalk between the scattering and absorption changes may not be ignored if they have comparable contributions to IOS. In vivo, the IOS changes linked to neural scattering have been elusive. To isolate neural scattering signals in vivo, we employed 2 implantable optodes for small-separation (2 mm) transmission measurements of local brain tissue in anesthetized rats. This unique geometry enables us to separate neuronal activity-related changes in neural tissue scattering from changes in blood absorption based upon the direction of the signal change. The changes in IOS scattering and absorption in response to up-states of spontaneous neuronal activity in cortical or subcortical structures have strong correlation to local field potentials, but significantly different response latencies. We conclude that activity-dependent neural tissue scattering in vivo may be an additional source of contrast for functional brain studies that provides complementary information to other optical or MR-based systems that are sensitive to hemodynamic contrast.
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.