2003
DOI: 10.1007/s00422-002-0386-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of cross-trial nonstationarity on joint-spike events

Abstract: Common to most correlation analysis techniques for neuronal spiking activity are assumptions of stationarity with respect to various parameters. However, experimental data may fail to be compatible with these assumptions. This failure can lead to falsely assigned significant outcomes. Here we study the effect of nonstationarity of spike rate across trials in a model-based approach. Using a two-rate-state model, where rates are drawn independently for trials and neurons, we show in detail that nonstationarity a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
45
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(50 reference statements)
2
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The basic, and quite plausible, counterexamples are forms of trial-to-trial variability, such as latency variations (Ventura 2004) or slowly varying common input, such as that due to internal variables not controlled by the experiment (Baker and Gerstein 2001;Czanner et al 2008;Grün et al 2003;Kass and Ventura 2006). One proposal for dealing with such concerns is to incorporate trial-varying firing rates into parametric models of the spiking process, which can again be tested, for example, by estimated trial-varying firing rates incorporated into bootstrap tests (Bair et al 2001;Ben-Shaul et al 2001;Brody 1999;Pauluis and Baker 2000;Ventura et al 2005b).…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The basic, and quite plausible, counterexamples are forms of trial-to-trial variability, such as latency variations (Ventura 2004) or slowly varying common input, such as that due to internal variables not controlled by the experiment (Baker and Gerstein 2001;Czanner et al 2008;Grün et al 2003;Kass and Ventura 2006). One proposal for dealing with such concerns is to incorporate trial-varying firing rates into parametric models of the spiking process, which can again be tested, for example, by estimated trial-varying firing rates incorporated into bootstrap tests (Bair et al 2001;Ben-Shaul et al 2001;Brody 1999;Pauluis and Baker 2000;Ventura et al 2005b).…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within each window, the expected number of coincidences is calculated as the sum of the trial-by-trial expectancies each as the product of the marginal probabilities of firing (Grün et al, 2003). This procedure considers differences in firing rates across trials and therefore accounts for nonstationarities across trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, coincidences of a certain temporal jitter are evaluated not by exclusive binning but by the "multiple shift" approach, which has a higher sensitivity (Grün et al, 1999). Second, the predicted number of coincident spikes is determined on a trial-by-trial basis, which takes into account nonstationarity of firing across trials (Grün et al, 2003). Still some criteria (described in Materials and Methods) have to be fulfilled by the datasets to enable reliable estimation of the significance of the synchrony.…”
Section: Detection Of Precise Spike Synchrony In Pairs Of Simultaneoumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No smoothing functions were applied to the CCs. Trial shuffling assumes stationarity across trials (Grün et al, 2003). We used autocorrelograms to distinguish between spike timing and latency or excitability covariations (Brody, 1999).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%