Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42172273›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

Spatial richness of neural magnetic fields.

Ziad Ali, Ada S Y Poon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Ziad AliElectrical Engineering Department, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2567-1041
Ada S Y PoonElectrical Engineering Department, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2647-6069

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain implants that measure neural magnetic fields, rather than electrical potentials, are expected to confer significant clinical advantages related to implant longevity and signal fidelity due to the elimination of the electrode-tissue interface. However, the informational differences between neural electrical potentials and magnetic fields remain poorly understood. Using a mathematical formalism based on neuronal current sources, we directly establish the complementary informational content of extracellular magnetic fields and electrical potentials. This formalism also reveals that extracellular magnetic fields generated by spiking neurons inherently exhibit one order lower spatial polarity than electric fields, resulting in more favorable distance-scaling characteristics. We then use computational modeling to illustrate how dense networks of neurons are easier to distinguish and spike sort on the basis of their magnetic, rather than electrical, spike templates. Lastly, we show how the solenoidal nature of neural magnetic fields facilitates approximate morphological reconstruction, even with sparse sensor arrays. Our findings highlight the unique experimental advantages of neural magnetic field sensing, motivating the development of compact, low-noise devices capable of meeting the stringent sensitivity requirements for cortical recordings.

Indexed as

Magnetic FieldsModels, NeurologicalNeuronsAction PotentialsAnimalsBrainComputational BiologyComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID42172273
PMCPMC13196990

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.