ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
On the validity of electric brain signal predictions based on population firing rates.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Simulated field potentials capture multiple simultaneous processes underlying human temporal attention.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A spatially discretized convolutional neural mass model for studying meso-scale spatio-temporal transformations in the rat hippocampus.Research square · 2026Article
- Pharmacological manipulation of nested oscillations in human iPSC-derived 2D neuronal networks.Neurobiology of disease · 2026Article
- In silico model of basal ganglia deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease captures range of effective parameters for pathological beta power suppression.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Neural activity at the population level is commonly studied experimentally through measurements of electric brain signals like local field potentials (LFPs), or electroencephalography (EEG) signals. To allow for comparison between observed and simulated neural activity it is therefore important that simulations of neural activity can accurately predict these brain signals. Simulations of neural activity at the population level often rely on point-neuron network models or firing-rate models. While these simplified representations of neural activity are computationally efficient, they lack the explicit spatial information needed for calculating LFP/EEG signals. Different heuristic approaches have been suggested for overcoming this limitation, but the accuracy of these approaches has not fully been assessed. One such heuristic approach, the so-called kernel method, has previously been applied with promising results and has the additional advantage of being well-grounded in the biophysics underlying electric brain signal generation. It is based on calculating rate-to-LFP/EEG kernels for each synaptic pathway in a network model, after which LFP/EEG signals can be obtained directly from population firing rates. This amounts to a massive reduction in the computational effort of calculating brain signals because the brain signals are calculated for each population instead of for each neuron. Here, we investigate how and when the kernel method can be expected to work, and present a theoretical framework for predicting its accuracy. We show that the relative error of the brain signal predictions is a function of the single-cell kernel heterogeneity and the spike-train correlations. Finally, we demonstrate that the kernel method is most accurate for contributions which are also dominating the brain signals: spatially clustered and correlated synaptic input to large populations of pyramidal cells. We thereby further establish the kernel method as a promising approach for calculating electric brain signals from large-scale neural simulations.
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.