ReviewBiosensors2023
Current Practice in Using Voltage Imaging to Record Fast Neuronal Activity: Successful Examples from Invertebrate to Mammalian Studies.
Review in Biosensors, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large-Scale Neural Recording Technologies for Investigating Circuit Dysfunction and Functional Biomarker Discovery in Animal Models of Alzheimer's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Fluorescent Labeling Methods for Brain Structure Research.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Neuronal 'Ensemble' Recording and the Search for the Cell Assembly: A Personal History.Hippocampus · 2025Review
- Nanotechnology and Cancer Bioelectricity: Bridging the Gap Between Biology and Translational Medicine.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Harnessing the potential of human induced pluripotent stem cells, functional assays and machine learning for neurodevelopmental disorders.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The optical imaging of neuronal activity with potentiometric probes has been credited with being able to address key questions in neuroscience via the simultaneous recording of many neurons. This technique, which was pioneered 50 years ago, has allowed researchers to study the dynamics of neural activity, from tiny subthreshold synaptic events in the axon and dendrites at the subcellular level to the fluctuation of field potentials and how they spread across large areas of the brain. Initially, synthetic voltage-sensitive dyes (VSDs) were applied directly to brain tissue via staining, but recent advances in transgenic methods now allow the expression of genetically encoded voltage indicators (GEVIs), specifically in selected neuron types. However, voltage imaging is technically difficult and limited by several methodological constraints that determine its applicability in a given type of experiment. The prevalence of this method is far from being comparable to patch clamp voltage recording or similar routine methods in neuroscience research. There are more than twice as many studies on VSDs as there are on GEVIs. As can be seen from the majority of the papers, most of them are either methodological ones or reviews. However, potentiometric imaging is able to address key questions in neuroscience by recording most or many neurons simultaneously, thus providing unique information that cannot be obtained via other methods. Different types of optical voltage indicators have their advantages and limitations, which we focus on in detail. Here, we summarize the experience of the scientific community in the application of voltage imaging and try to evaluate the contribution of this method to neuroscience research.
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.