Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37225111›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2023

Relative contributions of different neural sources to the EEG.

Brandon J Thio, Warren M Grill

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Predicting spiking activity from scalp EEG.Journal of neural engineering · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Neuronal oscillations in cognition: Down syndrome as a model of mouse to human translation.The Neuroscientist : a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Heterochronous laminar maturation in the human prefrontal cortex.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brandon J ThioDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Room 1427, Fitzpatrick CIEMAS, 101 Science Drive, Campus Box 90281, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Warren M GrillDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Room 1427, Fitzpatrick CIEMAS, 101 Science Drive, Campus Box 90281, Durham, NC 27708, USA; Duke University, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Neurobiology, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Department of Neurosurgery, Durham, NC, USA. Electronic address: warren.grill@duke.edu.
Duke University · US

Funding

Support for QA/QC for Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002553 · NCATS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S, MCNAMARA, JAMES O. · 2018 to 2023
$58.5M
Computational Tools for Improving Stereo-EEG Implantation and Resection SurgeryF31NS124094 · NINDS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI THIO, BRANDON JOON-SUN · 2022 to 2023
$73k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002553NINDS NIH HHS F31 NS124094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogma dictates that the EEG signal is generated by postsynaptic currents (PSCs) because there are an enormous number of synapses in the brain, and PSCs have relatively long durations. However, PSCs are not the only potential source of electric fields in the brain. Action potentials, afterpolarizations, and presynaptic activity can also generate electric fields. Experimentally it is exceedingly difficult to delineate the contributions of different sources because they are casually linked. However, using computational modeling, we can interrogate the relative contributions of different neural elements to the EEG. We used a library of neuron models with morphologically realistic axonal arbors to quantify the relative contributions of PSCs, action potentials, and presynaptic activity to the EEG signal. Consistent with prior assertions, PSCs were the largest contributor to the EEG, but action potentials and afterpolarizations can also make appreciable contributions. For a population of neurons generating simultaneous PSCs and action potentials, we found that the action potentials accounted for up to 20% of the source strength while PSCs accounted for the other 80% and presynaptic activity negligibly contributed. Additionally, L5 PCs generated the largest PSC and action potential signals indicating that they the dominant EEG signal generator. Further, action potentials and afterpolarizations were sufficient to generate physiological oscillations, indicating that they are valid source contributors to the EEG. The EEG emerges from a combination of multiple different source, and, while PSCs are the largest contributor, other sources are non-negligible and should be included in modeling, analysis and interpretation of the EEG.

Indexed as

NeuronsSynapsesAction PotentialsAxonsElectroencephalographyHumansAction potentialsComputational modelingEEG reconstructionElectroencephalographyPostsynaptic currents

Identifiers

PMID37225111
PMCPMC10288371
OpenAlexW4377293039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.