Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32490704›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2020

A template-matching algorithm for laminar identification of cortical recording sites from evoked response potentials.

Giulio Matteucci, Margherita Riggi, Davide Zoccolan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2020. 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

3 authors.

Giulio MatteucciNeuroscience, SISSA, Italy.
Margherita RiggiNeuroscience, SISSA, Italy.
Davide ZoccolanNeuroscience, SISSA, Italy.

Funding

EC | European Research Council (ERC) 616803-LEARN2SEE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the advent of the so-called silicon probes has made it possible to homogeneously sample spikes and local field potentials (LFPs) from a regular grid of cortical recording sites. In principle, this allows inferring the laminar location of the sites based on the spatiotemporal pattern of LFPs recorded along the probe, as in the well-known current source-density (CSD) analysis. This approach, however, has several limitations, since it relies on visual identification of landmark features (i.e., current sinks and sources) by human operators - features that can be absent from the CSD pattern if the probe does not span the whole cortical thickness, thus making manual labelling harder. Furthermore, as any manual annotation procedure, the typical CSD-based workflow for laminar identification of recording sites is affected by subjective judgment undermining the consistency and reproducibility of results. To overcome these limitations, we developed an alternative approach, based on finding the optimal match between the LFPs recorded along a probe in a given experiment and a template LFP profile that was computed using 18 recording sessions, in which the depth of the recording sites had been recovered through histology. We show that this method can achieve an accuracy of 79 µm in recovering the cortical depth of recording sites and a 76% accuracy in inferring their laminar location. As such, our approach provides an alternative to CSD that, being fully automated, is less prone to the idiosyncrasies of subjective judgment and works reliably also for recordings spanning a limited cortical stretch.

Indexed as

cortical layerssilicon probesvisual cortexvisually evoked potentials

Identifiers

PMID32490704
PMCPMC7474457

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.