Ephaptic coupling can explain variability in neural activity
Pinotsis, D.; Miller, E.
Show abstract
The waxing and waning cortical oscillatory power correlates with function and disease. This cross-trial variability has been thought to be due to neuromodulation, uncertainty encoding, and/or changes in cortical excitability. Here, we report evidence that it is also due to fluctuations in ephaptic influences of mesoscale electric fields. We analyzed LFP data from the PFC recorded during a spatial delay saccade task. We constructed a model that describes the electric field close to the cortical patch given the neural activity that generates it. This revealed that field-to-neuron interactions (ephaptic coupling strength) was stronger that neuron-to-field and it correlated trial by trial changes in oscillatory power. This suggests a form of circular causality where neural activity and extracellular electric fields continuously shape each other. These results further suggest that mesoscale ephaptic effects help drive the formation of memory ensembles, a prediction of the cytoelectric coupling hypothesis.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Spiking attractor model of motor cortex explains modulation of neural and behavioral variability by prior target information 97%
- Theory of spontaneous persistent activity and inactivity in vivo reveals differential cortico-entorhinal functional connectivity 96%
- Influence of On-Off dynamics and selective attention on the spatial pattern of correlated variability in neocortex 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Propofol-mediated loss of consciousness disrupts predictive routing and local field phase modulation of neural activity 95%
- Cross regional coordination of neural activity in the human brain during autobiographical self-referential processing 94%
- Information processing dynamics in neural networks of macaque cerebral cortex reflect cognitive state and behavior. 94%
"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.