ArticlePLoS computational biology2026
Benchmarking spike source localization algorithms in high density probes.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Growth-adaptive spring electronics for long-term, same-neuron mapping in the developing rat brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimating neuron location from extracellular recordings is essential for developing advanced brain-machine interfaces. Accurate neuron localization improves spike sorting, which involves detecting action potentials and assigning them to individual neurons. It also assists in monitoring probe drift, which affects long-term probe reliability. Although several localization algorithms are currently in use, the field is nascent and arguments for using one algorithm over another are largely theoretical or based on visual inspection of clustering results. We present a first-of-its-kind benchmarking of commonly used neuron localization algorithms. We assess these algorithms using two ground truth datasets: a biophysically realistic simulated dataset, and an experimental dataset pairing patch-clamp and extracellular Neuropixels recording data. We systematically evaluate the accuracy, robustness, and runtime of these algorithms in ideal recording conditions and long-term recording conditions with electrode degradation. Our findings highlight significant performance differences; while more complex and physically realistic models perform better in ideal conditions, models relying on simpler heuristics demonstrate superior robustness to noise and electrode degradation, making them more suitable for long-term neural recordings. This work provides a framework for assessing localization algorithms and developing robust, biologically grounded algorithms to advance the development of brain-machine interfaces.
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.