2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2018.12.200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proceedings #31: Cortical Network Complexity under Different Levels of Excitability Controlled by Electric Fields

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, the sPCI scored higher just because bath-application of modulators such as CCh or NE increased the excitability of the slice. However, if that were the case, any experimental manipulation increasing the excitability of the slice would result in higher sPCI values compared with those obtained under the SO regime ( Barbero-Castillo et al, 2019 ; D'Andola et al, 2017 ) already demonstrated the opposite, showing that either bath-application of a glutamate receptor agonist (kainate) or electric field modulation (respectively) in cortical slices increased network excitability without affecting sPCI. Finally, the authors did not find a relationship between network excitability and sPCI ( D'Andola et al, 2017 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In other words, the sPCI scored higher just because bath-application of modulators such as CCh or NE increased the excitability of the slice. However, if that were the case, any experimental manipulation increasing the excitability of the slice would result in higher sPCI values compared with those obtained under the SO regime ( Barbero-Castillo et al, 2019 ; D'Andola et al, 2017 ) already demonstrated the opposite, showing that either bath-application of a glutamate receptor agonist (kainate) or electric field modulation (respectively) in cortical slices increased network excitability without affecting sPCI. Finally, the authors did not find a relationship between network excitability and sPCI ( D'Andola et al, 2017 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Network complexity can be measured by different means in the spontaneous activity, either electrophysiological or imaging signal. A variety of such measures exist, including Lempel–Ziv compressibility ( Szczepański et al, 2003 ; Hudetz et al, 2016 ), Shannon entropy ( Zhao et al, 2010 ), entropy of wave propagation ( Barbero-Castillo et al, 2019 ), and functional complexity ( Zamora-López et al, 2016 ), among others. However, a perturbational approach presents advantages with respect to an observational one (based on spontaneous activity) because it is less affected by noise or isolated processes, and only assesses information generated through deterministic interactions, which also gives advantages that are useful clinically ( Casali et al, 2013 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In order to further explore the cortical dynamics in WBS mice, we used surface-subdural arrays of 32 electrodes (micro-ECoG) covering different areas (visual, retrospenial, parietal association, somatosensory, and motor cortex) of one hemisphere. We first measured the propagation of the slow waves [22,29,44], a property that is highly revealing of the underlying network. We quantified the diversity of the propagating waves as the entropy in the plane of the first and second principal components of the waves (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The projection of the TimeLagMatrix on the first two principal component spaces was used to compute a measure of complexity based on the entropy of wavefronts' activation [29].…”
Section: Propagationmentioning
confidence: 99%