ArticleeNeuro
Comparing Surrogates to Evaluate Precisely Timed Higher-Order Spike Correlations.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of data preprocessing on spike correlation analysis results.Biological cybernetics · 2026Article
- Detection and Removal of Hyper-synchronous Artifacts in Massively Parallel Spike Recordings.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- A quality measure for repeating multiple-unit spike patterns.Biological cybernetics · 2026Article
- Improving data sharing and knowledge transfer via the Neuroelectrophysiology Analysis Ontology (NEAO).Scientific data · 2025Article
- An Information-Geometric Formulation of Pattern Separation and Evaluation of Existing Indices.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Third-order motifs are sufficient to fully and uniquely characterize spatiotemporal neural network activity.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Precise Spiking Motifs in Neurobiological and Neuromorphic Data.Brain sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The generation of surrogate data, i.e., the modification of data to destroy a certain feature, can be considered as the implementation of a null-hypothesis whenever an analytical approach is not feasible. Thus, surrogate data generation has been extensively used to assess the significance of spike correlations in parallel spike trains. In this context, one of the main challenges is to properly construct the desired null-hypothesis distribution and to avoid altering the single spike train statistics. A classical surrogate technique is uniform dithering (UD), which displaces spikes locally and uniformly distributed, to destroy temporal properties on a fine timescale while keeping them on a coarser one. Here, we compare UD against five similar surrogate techniques in the context of the detection of significant spatiotemporal spike patterns. We evaluate the surrogates for their performance, first on spike trains based on point process models with constant firing rate, and second on modeled nonstationary artificial data to assess the potential detection of false positive (FP) patterns in a more complex and realistic setting. We determine which statistical features of the spike trains are modified and to which extent. Moreover, we find that UD fails as an appropriate surrogate because it leads to a loss of spikes in the context of binning and clipping, and thus to a large number of FP patterns. The other surrogates achieve a better performance in detecting precisely timed higher-order correlations. Based on these insights, we analyze experimental data from the pre-/motor cortex of macaque monkeys during a reaching-and-grasping task.
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.