Removal of Spurious Correlations Between Spikes and Local Field Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single neurons carry out important sensory and motor functions related to the larger networks in which they are embedded. Understanding the relationships between single-neuron spiking and network activity is therefore of great importance and the latter can be readily estimated from low-frequency brain signals known as local field potentials (LFPs). In this work we examine a number of issues related to the estimation of spike and LFP signals. We show that spike trains and individual spikes contain power at the frequencies that are typically thought to be exclusively related to LFPs, such that simple frequency-domain filtering cannot be effectively used to separate the two signals. Ground-truth simulations indicate that the commonly used method of estimating the LFP signal by low-pass filtering the raw voltage signal leads to artifactual correlations between spikes and LFPs and that these correlations exert a powerful influence on popular metrics of spike-LFP synchronization. Similar artifactual results were seen in data obtained from electrophysiological recordings in macaque visual cortex, when low-pass filtering was used to estimate LFP signals. In contrast LFP tuning curves in response to sensory stimuli do not appear to be affected by spike contamination, either in simulations or in real data. To address the issue of spike contamination, we devised a novel Bayesian spike removal algorithm and confirmed its effectiveness in simulations and by applying it to the electrophysiological data. The algorithm, based on a rigorous mathematical framework, outperforms other methods of spike removal on most metrics of spike-LFP correlations. Following application of this spike removal algorithm, many of our electrophysiological recordings continued to exhibit spike-LFP correlations, confirming previous reports that such relationships are a genuine aspect of neuronal activity. Overall, these results show that careful preprocessing is necessary to remove spikes from LFP signals, but that when effective spike removal is used, spike-LFP correlations can potentially yield novel insights about brain function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".