2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Model-based source localization of extracellular action potentials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
41
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(27 reference statements)
0
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This MUA signal is expected to be dominated by neurons with a vertical displacement of less than ϳ0.1 mm from the electrode contact position (Somogyvári et al 2005). Thus this earliest MUA signal is interpreted as being largely caused by action potentials from layer 4 neurons, i.e., granular cells.…”
Section: Experimental Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This MUA signal is expected to be dominated by neurons with a vertical displacement of less than ϳ0.1 mm from the electrode contact position (Somogyvári et al 2005). Thus this earliest MUA signal is interpreted as being largely caused by action potentials from layer 4 neurons, i.e., granular cells.…”
Section: Experimental Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Perhaps because of its simplicity, several studies have used a monopole source model to localize neurons from extracellular recordings (Chelaru and Jog 2005;Lee et al 2007;Somogyvari et al 2005). However, as discussed above (The local lobe interpretation), the field around a neuron beyond a minimum r 0 is accurately approximated by a dipole rather than a monopole.…”
Section: The Recording Radius and Volume Of Tetrodesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Supporting evidence for this [detailed in the companion paper (Mechler and Victor 2011)] comes from extensive reanalysis of published data from other laboratories and computer simulations. The monopole, with four parameters (1 for intensity and 3 for the spatial coordinates; 2 fewer than the 6 parameters of the dipole), is the simplest possible source model, and it has been the most frequently used alternative of the dipole in neuron localization (Chelaru and Jog 2005;Lee et al 2007;Somogyvari et al 2005). However, it has a critical albeit hitherto not-wellrecognized flaw; it seriously underestimates the source distance at typical cell-probe distances (see DISCUSSION; also see companion paper and its supplemental material from Mechler and Victor 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several neuronal source localization algorithms have been proposed and used in vivo [3], [6], [7], [8], [9]. These methods employed various approaches ranging from simple heuristic EAP generative models [6], [7], to more biophysically realistic models, such as monopole [3], dipole [9], and line source [8] approximations.…”
Section: Background and Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…These methods employed various approaches ranging from simple heuristic EAP generative models [6], [7], to more biophysically realistic models, such as monopole [3], dipole [9], and line source [8] approximations. However, since these experiments were performed in vivo where the exact location of neurons is unknown, the localization results could not be validated.…”
Section: Background and Significancementioning
confidence: 99%