4.8 Article

Noninvasive neuromagnetic single-trial analysis of human neocortical population spikes

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2017401118

Keywords

magnetoencephalography; spiking activity; single-trial analysis; noninvasive; high-frequency somatosensory evoked responses

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) [424778381 TRR 295]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study utilized a new MEG technology to demonstrate the effective portrayal of evoked cortical population spike bursts in healthy human subjects, revealing significant trial-to-trial variability of burst amplitudes and time-correlated fluctuations of burst response latencies.
Neuronal spiking is commonly recorded by invasive sharp microelectrodes, whereas standard noninvasive macroapproaches (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG] and magnetoencephalography [MEG]) predominantly represent mass postsynaptic potentials. A notable exception are low-amplitude high-frequency (similar to 600 Hz) somatosensory EEG/MEG responses that can represent population spikes when averaged over hundreds of trials to raise the signal-to-noise ratio. Here, a recent leap in MEG technology-featuring a factor 10 reduction in white noise level compared with standard systems-is leveraged to establish an effective single-trial portrayal of evoked cortical population spike bursts in healthy human subjects. This time-resolved approach proved instrumental in revealing a significant trial-to-trial variability of burst amplitudes as well as timecorrelated (similar to 10 s) fluctuations of burst response latencies. Thus, ultralow-noise MEG enables noninvasive single-trial analyses of human cortical population spikes concurrent with low-frequency mass postsynaptic activity and thereby could comprehensively characterize cortical processing, potentially also in diseases not amenable to invasive microelectrode recordings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available