Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38150481›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Estimating neuronal firing density: A quantitative analysis of firing rate map algorithms.

Roddy M Grieves

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roddy M GrievesDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6812-4056
Dartmouth College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The analysis of neurons that exhibit receptive fields dependent on an organism's spatial location, such as grid, place or boundary cells typically begins by mapping their activity in space using firing rate maps. However, mapping approaches are varied and depend on multiple tuning parameters that are usually chosen qualitatively by the experimenter and thus vary significantly across studies. Small changes in parameters such as these can impact results significantly, yet, to date a quantitative investigation of firing rate maps has not been attempted. Using simulated datasets, we examined how tuning parameters, recording duration and firing field size affect the accuracy of spatial maps generated using the most widely used approaches. For each approach we found a clear subset of parameters which yielded low-error firing rate maps and isolated the parameters yielding 1) the least error possible and 2) the Pareto-optimal parameter set which balanced error, computation time, place field detection accuracy and the extrapolation of missing values. Smoothed bivariate histograms and averaged shifted histograms were consistently associated with the fastest computation times while still providing accurate maps. Adaptive smoothing and binning approaches were found to compensate for low positional sampling the most effectively. Kernel smoothed density estimation also compensated for low sampling well and resulted in accurate maps, but it was also among the slowest methods tested. Overall, the bivariate histogram, coupled with spatial smoothing, is likely the most desirable method in the majority of cases.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNeuronsAction PotentialsSpatial Analysis

Identifiers

PMID38150481
PMCPMC10775984
OpenAlexW4390264026

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.