Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31682604›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2019

Neural field models for latent state inference: Application to large-scale neuronal recordings.

Michael E Rule, David Schnoerr, Matthias H Hennig, Guido Sanguinetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Michael E RuleDepartment of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4196-774X
David SchnoerrTheoretical Systems Biology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Matthias H HennigDepartment of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7270-5817
Guido SanguinettiDepartment of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-scale neural recording methods now allow us to observe large populations of identified single neurons simultaneously, opening a window into neural population dynamics in living organisms. However, distilling such large-scale recordings to build theories of emergent collective dynamics remains a fundamental statistical challenge. The neural field models of Wilson, Cowan, and colleagues remain the mainstay of mathematical population modeling owing to their interpretable, mechanistic parameters and amenability to mathematical analysis. Inspired by recent advances in biochemical modeling, we develop a method based on moment closure to interpret neural field models as latent state-space point-process models, making them amenable to statistical inference. With this approach we can infer the intrinsic states of neurons, such as active and refractory, solely from spiking activity in large populations. After validating this approach with synthetic data, we apply it to high-density recordings of spiking activity in the developing mouse retina. This confirms the essential role of a long lasting refractory state in shaping spatiotemporal properties of neonatal retinal waves. This conceptual and methodological advance opens up new theoretical connections between mathematical theory and point-process state-space models in neural data analysis.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAlgorithmsAnimalsBayes TheoremBrain MappingComputational BiologyData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansModels, NeurologicalModels, TheoreticalNerve NetNeuroimagingNeurons

Identifiers

PMID31682604
PMCPMC6855563

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.