Back

A unified picture of neuronal avalanches arises from the understanding of sampling effects

Pinheiro Neto, J.; Spitzner, F. P.; Priesemann, V.

2019-09-08 neuroscience
10.1101/759613 bioRxiv
Show abstract

To date, it is still impossible to sample the entire mammalian brain with single-neuron precision. This forces one to either use spikes (focusing on few neurons) or to use coarse-sampled activity (averaging over many neurons, e.g. LFP). Naturally, the sampling technique impacts inference about collective properties. Here, we emulate both sampling techniques on a spiking model to quantify how they alter observed correlations and signatures of criticality. We discover a general effect: when the inter-electrode distance is small, electrodes sample overlapping regions in space, which increases the correlation between the signals. For coarse-sampled activity, this can produce power-law distributions even for non-critical systems. In contrast, spike recordings enable one to distinguish the underlying dynamics. This explains why coarse measures and spikes have produced contradicting results in the past - that are now all consistent with a slightly subcritical regime.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
26.1%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 3%
11.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.5%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Physical Review E
● 112 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.1%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
5
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 25%
5.1%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.8%
7
Physical Review Letters
● 47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
8
Physical Review X
● 25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
9
Physical Review Research
● 49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
10
Journal of Neural Engineering
○ 221 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
11
Nature Computational Science
○ 55 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
12
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.7%
13
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
14
The Journal of Neuroscience
● 1025 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.3%
15
Nature Neuroscience
○ 252 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
16
PRX Life
● 42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
17
Neural Computation
● 39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
18
PNAS Nexus
◐ 159 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 37%
0.8%
20
NeuroImage
○ 903 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
21
Biophysical Journal
○ 631 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.8%
23
Network Neuroscience
● 126 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
24
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.6%
25
Journal of Neurophysiology
● 302 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.