Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36522604›Full record

ReviewJournal of computational neuroscience2023

Neural manifold analysis of brain circuit dynamics in health and disease.

Rufus Mitchell-Heggs, Seigfred Prado, Giuseppe P Gava, Mary Ann Go, Simon R Schultz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Structure Guides Function: Beyond Pairwise Neural Interactions.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A neural manifold view of the brain.Nature neuroscience · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Structured Dynamics in the Algorithmic Agent.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Rufus Mitchell-Heggs *Department of Bioengineering and Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Seigfred Prado *Department of Bioengineering and Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Giuseppe P GavaDepartment of Bioengineering and Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Mary Ann GoDepartment of Bioengineering and Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Simon R SchultzDepartment of Bioengineering and Centre for Neurotechnology, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. s.schultz@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 207481/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust 22152/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent developments in experimental neuroscience make it possible to simultaneously record the activity of thousands of neurons. However, the development of analysis approaches for such large-scale neural recordings have been slower than those applicable to single-cell experiments. One approach that has gained recent popularity is neural manifold learning. This approach takes advantage of the fact that often, even though neural datasets may be very high dimensional, the dynamics of neural activity tends to traverse a much lower-dimensional space. The topological structures formed by these low-dimensional neural subspaces are referred to as "neural manifolds", and may potentially provide insight linking neural circuit dynamics with cognitive function and behavioral performance. In this paper we review a number of linear and non-linear approaches to neural manifold learning, including principal component analysis (PCA), multi-dimensional scaling (MDS), Isomap, locally linear embedding (LLE), Laplacian eigenmaps (LEM), t-SNE, and uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP). We outline these methods under a common mathematical nomenclature, and compare their advantages and disadvantages with respect to their use for neural data analysis. We apply them to a number of datasets from published literature, comparing the manifolds that result from their application to hippocampal place cells, motor cortical neurons during a reaching task, and prefrontal cortical neurons during a multi-behavior task. We find that in many circumstances linear algorithms produce similar results to non-linear methods, although in particular cases where the behavioral complexity is greater, non-linear methods tend to find lower-dimensional manifolds, at the possible expense of interpretability. We demonstrate that these methods are applicable to the study of neurological disorders through simulation of a mouse model of Alzheimer's Disease, and speculate that neural manifold analysis may help us to understand the circuit-level consequences of molecular and cellular neuropathology.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, NeurologicalAnimalsBrainComputer SimulationLearningMiceDimensionality reductionManifold learningNeural manifoldsNeural population analysisNeurological disorders

Identifiers

PMID36522604
PMCPMC9840597

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.