An entropy-based method to measure phase-locking between LFP and spikes
Source abstract
Abstract
Phase-locking between local field potential and spikes has been widely investigated through neurophysiological analysis. Two indices most frequently adopted traditionally include the mean resultant length and p of the Rayleigh test. However, the traditional method is found less reliable for cases with substantial sample sizes or with bimodal distribution. In this article, K we propose an entropy-based method to detect and measure phase-locking. Simulation results prove that the method can be effectively applied to cases with a relatively large sample size and it can effectively detect phase-locking even under bimodal conditions with two peaks of opposite phases. Furthermore, we propose thresholds to help measure the intensity of spike field phase-locking. We also apply the proposed method to our experimental data and find phase locking with two opposite phases, which would be left out in traditional phase-locking analysis.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Neural dynamics and brain function · stochastic dynamics and bifurcation · Photoreceptor and optogenetics research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Electronic Science and Engineering, Nanjing University 1 , Nanjing, China
State Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, National Resource Center for Mutant Mice, and Department of Physiology, School of Life Sciences, Nanjing University 2 , Nanjing, China
Institute for Brain Sciences, Nanjing University 3 , Nanjing, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. Trends Cognit. Sci. · 2017 · 21 · 13710.1016/j.tics.2016.12.008 ↗
2. Neuron · 2017 · 93 · 49110.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.036 ↗
3. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. · 2012 · 13 · 40710.1038/nrn3241 ↗
4. Pain · 2016 · 157 · 25510.1097/j.pain.0000000000000362 ↗
5. J. Neurophysiol. · 2000 · 83 · 260210.1152/jn.2000.83.5.2602 ↗
6. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. · 2009 · 106 · 2134110.1073/pnas.0908193106 ↗
7. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. · 2016 · 113 · 1349210.1073/pnas.1606479113 ↗
8. Hum. Brain Mapp. · 1999 · 8 · 19410.1002/(sici)1097-0193(1999)8:4<194::aid-hbm4>3.0.co;2-c ↗
9. J. Am. Chem. Soc. · 2001 · 123 · 1069910.1021/ja011021b ↗
10. Neuroimage · 2010 · 51 · 11210.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.073 ↗
11. Hum. Brain Mapp. · 2007 · 28 · 117810.1002/hbm.20346 ↗
12. Front. Syst. Neurosci. · 2016 · 9 · 17510.3389/fnsys.2015.00175 ↗
13. NeuroImage · 2011 · 55 · 154810.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.055 ↗
14. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. · 2012 · 35 · 20310.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150444 ↗
15. Neuron · 2010 · 66 · 92110.1016/j.neuron.2010.05.013 ↗
16. Neuroscience · 2015 · 298 · 20010.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.04.024 ↗
17. Nature · 2003 · 421 · 84410.1038/nature01374 ↗
18. J. Neurosci. · 2010 · 30 · 125010.1523/jneurosci.1623-09.2010 ↗
19. Physiol. Rev. · 2010 · 90 · 119510.1152/physrev.00035.2008 ↗
20. Neuron · 2005 · 46 · 14110.1016/j.neuron.2005.02.028 ↗
21. 1993
22. Neuroscience · 2016 · 314 · 7510.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.11.044 ↗
23. J. Neurosci. · 2013 · 33 · 1846910.1523/jneurosci.2197-13.2013 ↗
24. eNeuro · 2017 · 4 · 12810.1523/eneuro.0128-17.2017 ↗
25. Lancet Neurol. · 2018 · 17 · 97710.1016/s1474-4422(18)30274-6 ↗
26. BMC Ecol. · 2019 · 19 · 3010.1186/s12898-019-0246-8 ↗
27. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2020 · 116 · 01410110.1063/1.5133419 ↗
28. Found. Trends Econom. · 2007 · 2 · 110.1561/0800000004 ↗
29. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory · 2006 · 52 · 128910.1109/tit.2006.871582 ↗
30. Physica A · 2018 · 490 · 108710.1016/j.physa.2017.08.089 ↗
31. Biomed. Signal Process. Control · 2012 · 7 · 40110.1016/j.bspc.2011.07.007 ↗
32. Bell Syst. Tech. J. · 1948 · 27 · 37910.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x ↗
33. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. · 2008 · 14 · 3310.1016/j.parkreldis.2007.05.008 ↗