Noninvasive neuromagnetic single-trial analysis of human neocortical population spikes
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 (∼600...
Saved in:
Published in | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS Vol. 118; no. 11 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
National Academy of Sciences
16.03.2021
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | 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 (∼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 time-correlated (∼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. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 Edited by Peter L. Strick, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, and approved February 9, 2021 (received for review August 17, 2020) Author contributions: G.W., R.K., J.-H.S., and G.C. designed research; G.W., R.K., J.-H.S., and G.C. performed research; R.K. and J.-H.S. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; G.W., R.K., and G.C. analyzed data; and G.W., R.K., J.-H.S., and G.C. wrote the paper. 1G.W. and R.K. contributed equally to this work. |
ISSN: | 0027-8424 1091-6490 |
DOI: | 10.1073/pnas.2017401118 |