Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33469424›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2020

On the Validity of Neural Mass Models.

Nicolás Deschle, Juan Ignacio Gossn, Prejaas Tewarie, Björn Schelter, Andreas Daffertshofer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Adaptive rewiring in nonuniform coupled oscillators.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022
    Article
  7. Generative Models of Brain Dynamics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Dynamics-informed priors (DIP) for neural mass modelling.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
    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

5 authors.

Nicolás DeschleFaculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Juan Ignacio GossnConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Instituto de Astronomía y Física del Espacio, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Universitaria, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Prejaas TewarieSir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Björn SchelterInstitute for Complex Systems and Mathematical Biology, University of Aberdeen, King's College, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Andreas DaffertshoferFaculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modeling the dynamics of neural masses is a common approach in the study of neural populations. Various models have been proven useful to describe a plenitude of empirical observations including self-sustained local oscillations and patterns of distant synchronization. We discuss the extent to which mass models really resemble the mean dynamics of a neural population. In particular, we question the validity of neural mass models if the population under study comprises a mixture of excitatory and inhibitory neurons that are densely (inter-)connected. Starting from a network of noisy leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, we formulated two different population dynamics that both fall into the category of seminal Freeman neural mass models. The derivations contained several mean-field assumptions and time scale separation(s) between membrane and synapse dynamics. Our comparison of these neural mass models with the averaged dynamics of the population reveals bounds in the fraction of excitatory/inhibitory neuron as well as overall network degree for a mass model to provide adequate estimates. For substantial parameter ranges, our models fail to mimic the neural network's dynamics proper, be that in de-synchronized or in (high-frequency) synchronized states. Only around the onset of low-frequency synchronization our models provide proper estimates of the mean potential dynamics. While this shows their potential for, e.g., studying resting state dynamics obtained by encephalography with focus on the transition region, we must accept that predicting the more general dynamic outcome of a neural network via its mass dynamics requires great care.

Indexed as

Freeman modelleaky integrate and firemean field approximationneural mass modelrandom graph

Identifiers

PMID33469424
PMCPMC7814001

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.