↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the impact of electrical stimulation temporal distribution on cortical network responses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating the impact of electrical stimulation temporal distribution on cortical network responses
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12868-017-0366-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Scarsi, Jacopo Tessadori, Michela Chiappalone, Valentina Pasquale

Abstract

The brain is continuously targeted by a wealth of stimuli with complex spatio-temporal patterns and has presumably evolved in order to cope with those inputs in an optimal way. Previous studies investigating the response capabilities of either single neurons or intact sensory systems to external stimulation demonstrated that stimuli temporal distribution is an important, if often overlooked, parameter. In this study we investigated how cortical networks plated over micro-electrode arrays respond to different stimulation sequences in which inter-pulse intervals followed a 1/f (β) distribution, for different values of β ranging from 0 to ∞. Cross-correlation analysis revealed that network activity preferentially synchronizes with external input sequences featuring β closer to 1 and, in any case, never for regular (i.e. fixed-frequency) stimulation sequences. We then tested the interplay between different average stimulation frequencies (based on the intrinsic firing/bursting frequency of the network) for two selected values of β, i.e. 1 (scale free) and ∞ (regular). In general, we observed no preference for stimulation frequencies matching the endogenous rhythms of the network. Moreover, we found that in case of regular stimulation the capability of the network to follow the stimulation sequence was negatively correlated to the absolute stimulation frequency, whereas using scale-free stimulation cross-correlation between input and output sequences was independent from average input frequency. Our results point out that the preference for a scale-free distribution of the stimuli is observed also at network level and should be taken into account in designing more efficient protocols for neuromodulation purposes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 11 26%
Engineering 9 21%
Computer Science 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#20,427,593
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#1,060
of 1,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,107
of 317,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#15
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,250 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.