4.4 Article

Effect of amplitude correlations on coherence in the local field potential

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 112, 期 4, 页码 741-751

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00851.2013

关键词

amplitude correlations; coherence; local field potential

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance
  2. Indian Institute of Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neural activity across the brain shows both spatial and temporal correlations at multiple scales, and understanding these correlations is a key step toward understanding cortical processing. Correlation in the local field potential (LFP) recorded from two brain areas is often characterized by computing the coherence, which is generally taken to reflect the degree of phase consistency across trials between two sites. Coherence, however, depends on two factors-phase consistency as well as amplitude covariation across trials-but the spatial structure of amplitude correlations across sites and its contribution to coherence are not well characterized. We recorded LFP from an array of microelectrodes chronically implanted in the primary visual cortex of monkeys and studied correlations in amplitude across electrodes as a function of interelectrode distance. We found that amplitude correlations showed a similar trend as coherence as a function of frequency and interelectrode distance. Importantly, even when phases were completely randomized between two electrodes, amplitude correlations introduced significant coherence. To quantify the contributions of phase consistency and amplitude correlations to coherence, we simulated pairs of sinusoids with varying phase consistency and amplitude correlations. These simulations confirmed that amplitude correlations can significantly bias coherence measurements, resulting in either over-or underestimation of true phase coherence. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for the correlations in amplitude while using coherence to study phase relationships across sites and frequencies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据