| Literature DB >> 34910260 |
Pablo Martínez-Cañada1,2, Shahryar Noei1,3, Stefano Panzeri4,5.
Abstract
Electrical recordings of neural mass activity, such as local field potentials (LFPs) and electroencephalograms (EEGs), have been instrumental in studying brain function. However, these aggregate signals lack cellular resolution and thus are not easy to be interpreted directly in terms of parameters of neural microcircuits. Developing tools for a reliable estimation of key neural parameters from these signals, such as the interaction between excitation and inhibition or the level of neuromodulation, is important for both neuroscientific and clinical applications. Over the years, we have developed tools based on neural network modeling and computational analysis of empirical data to estimate neural parameters from aggregate neural signals. This review article gives an overview of the main computational tools that we have developed and employed to invert LFPs and EEGs in terms of circuit-level neural phenomena, and outlines future challenges and directions for future research.Entities:
Keywords: Electroencephalogram (EEG); Information theory; Leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neuron model; Local field potential (LFP); Neural network model; Neural oscillation; Neuromodulation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34910260 PMCID: PMC8674171 DOI: 10.1186/s40708-021-00148-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Inform ISSN: 2198-4026
Fig. 1Comparison of power and information spectra. Data were taken from primary visual cortex of anaesthetized macaques during stimulation with naturalistic movies. A Power spectrum. B Information conveyed by power spectrum. Recomputed from data first published in [23, 48]
Fig. 2Illustration of computation of the mutual information carried by LFP power about movie scenes. A Simulation of single-trial LFP power in the gamma band (from 70 to 80 Hz) using a sparsely connected recurrent network of excitatory and inhibitory neurons [40]. To simulate periods of low and high LFP power, which approximate the different movie scenes used in the original publication [40], we modulated the external input rate of the model by superposition of a sine wave with frequency 1 Hz and a constant rate signal. The spectrogram was computed over half a cycle of the sinusoid. Every time window of the spectrogram was considered a different scene ( and are a period of low and high LFP gamma power, respectively). Thus, the probability of each scene is the inverse of the number of time windows. B Probability distribution of the LFP gamma power across all trials and scenes. Probability distribution of the LFP gamma power across all trials given the presented scenes (C) and (D)
Fig. 3A Recurrent inhibitory–excitatory (I–E) network of LIF point neurons. Excitatory and inhibitory neurons receive two different types of external inputs: a sensory-driven input and a cortico-cortical input. B Network of multicompartment neuron models used in the hybrid modeling approach [72, 73] to compute the ground-truth EEG signal. C Raster plots of spiking activity (top panels) of the LIF network model for the asynchronous irregular (AI), synchronous irregular (SI) and synchronous regular (SR) network states. Comparison between ground-truth EEGs and outputs of the current-based ERWS1 and ERWS2 proxies (bottom panels)
Fig. 4LFPs (A) and PSDs (B) generated for two different ratios between inhibitory and excitatory conductances (). The relationship between 1/f slopes (C) and Hurst exponents (D) are plotted as a function of for two different firing rates of thalamic input (1.5 and 2 spikes/second). The reference value of (which has shown in previous studies to reproduce cortical data well) is represented by a dashed black line. Recomputed and replotted from data published in ref. [79]