Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31231777›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2019

How to correctly quantify neuronal phase-response curves from noisy recordings.

Janina Hesse, Susanne Schreiber

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Janina HesseInstitute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philippstr. 13, 10115, Berlin, Germany. janina.hesse@bccn-berlin.de.ORCID 0000-0003-0283-3471
Susanne SchreiberInstitute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philippstr. 13, 10115, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At the level of individual neurons, various coding properties can be inferred from the input-output relationship of a cell. For small inputs, this relation is captured by the phase-response curve (PRC), which measures the effect of a small perturbation on the timing of the subsequent spike. Experimentally, however, an accurate experimental estimation of PRCs is challenging. Despite elaborate measurement efforts, experimental PRC estimates often cannot be related to those from modeling studies. In particular, experimental PRCs rarely resemble the characteristic theoretical PRC expected close to spike initiation, which is indicative of the underlying spike-onset bifurcation. Here, we show for conductance-based model neurons that the correspondence between theoretical and measured phase-response curve is lost when the stimuli used for the estimation are too large. In this case, the derived phase-response curve is distorted beyond recognition and takes on a generic shape that reflects the measurement protocol and masks the spike-onset bifurcation. We discuss how to identify appropriate stimulus strengths for perturbation and noise-stimulation methods, which permit to estimate PRCs that reliably reflect the spike-onset bifurcation - a task that is particularly difficult if a lower bound for the stimulus amplitude is dictated by prominent intrinsic neuronal noise.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalPatch-Clamp TechniquesAction PotentialsNeuronsSignal-To-Noise RatioFinite phase response curveIntrinsic noisePhase response curve measurementSpike onset bifurcation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.