Local neuronal excitation and global inhibition during epileptic fast ripples in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the neuronal basis of epileptic activity is a major challenge in neurology. Cellular integration into larger scale networks is all the more challenging. In the local field potential, interictal epileptic discharges can be associated with fast ripples (200-600 Hz), which are a promising marker of the epileptogenic zone. Yet, how neuronal populations in the epileptogenic zone and in healthy tissue are affected by fast ripples remain unclear. Here, we used a novel 'hybrid' macro-micro depth electrode in nine drug-resistant epileptic patients, combining classic depth recording of local field potentials (macro-contacts) and two or three tetrodes (four micro-wires bundled together) enabling up to 15 neurons in local circuits to be simultaneously recorded. We characterized neuronal responses (190 single units) with the timing of fast ripples (2233 fast ripples) on the same hybrid and other electrodes that target other brain regions. Micro-wire recordings reveal signals that are not visible on macro-contacts. While fast ripples detected on the closest macro-contact to the tetrodes were always associated with fast ripples on the tetrodes, 82% of fast ripples detected on tetrodes were associated with detectable fast ripples on the nearest macro-contact. Moreover, neuronal recordings were taken in and outside the epileptogenic zone of implanted epileptic subjects and they revealed an interlay of excitation and inhibition across anatomical scales. While fast ripples were associated with increased neuronal activity in very local circuits only, they were followed by inhibition in large-scale networks (beyond the epileptogenic zone, even in healthy cortex). Neuronal responses to fast ripples were homogeneous in local networks but differed across brain areas. Similarly, post-fast ripple inhibition varied across recording locations and subjects and was shorter than typical inter-fast ripple intervals, suggesting that this inhibition is a fundamental refractory process for the networks. These findings demonstrate that fast ripples engage local and global networks, including healthy tissue, and point to network features that pave the way for new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. They also reveal how even localized pathological brain dynamics can affect a broad range of cognitive functions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".