Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42052521›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026

A historical review of ephaptic field research: from early foundations through contemporary renaissance.

Tam Hunt, M Bruce MacIver

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Tam HuntUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States.
M Bruce MacIverStanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ephaptic field research has undergone a remarkable evolution spanning over nine decades, from pioneering observations in the 1930s through a period of severe scientific skepticism in the mid-20th century to a contemporary renaissance driven by advanced computational modeling, measurement techniques, and new consciousness theories. This review traces the complete chronological development of ephaptic coupling research, examining early foundational work by Adrian, Katz and Schmitt, and Arvanitaki, the influential skepticism of Lashley's study that marginalized the field for decades, and the recent resurgence beginning in the 2000s that has led to recognition of ephaptic interactions as providing fast and direct communication throughout the brain. Contemporary research has established that weak electric fields (0.1-5 V/m) can produce measurable physiological effects and that ephaptic coupling contributes significantly to brain network complexity, memory formation, and potentially consciousness itself. Ephaptic communication, together with some form of electromagnetic field (EMF) theory of consciousness, provides a ready solution to the critical 'binding problem' that has perplexed philosophers and neuroscientists for at least the last century. This historical perspective demonstrates how scientific paradigms can shift dramatically as methodological advances allow for more sophisticated investigation of previously dismissed phenomena.

Indexed as

brain networksconsciousnesselectromagnetic fieldsephaptic couplingneural communication

Identifiers

PMID42052521
PMCPMC13111299

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.