↓ Skip to main content

Local Field Potentials: Myths and Misunderstandings

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neural Circuits, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 1,299)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
25 X users
patent
12 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
1014 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Local Field Potentials: Myths and Misunderstandings
Published in
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncir.2016.00101
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oscar Herreras

Abstract

The intracerebral local field potential (LFP) is a measure of brain activity that reflects the highly dynamic flow of information across neural networks. This is a composite signal that receives contributions from multiple neural sources, yet interpreting its nature and significance may be hindered by several confounding factors and technical limitations. By and large, the main factor defining the amplitude of LFPs is the geometry of the current sources, over and above the degree of synchronization or the properties of the media. As such, similar levels of activity may result in potentials that differ in several orders of magnitude in different populations. The geometry of these sources has been experimentally inaccessible until intracerebral high density recordings enabled the co-activating sources to be revealed. Without this information, it has proven difficult to interpret a century's worth of recordings that used temporal cues alone, such as event or spike related potentials and frequency bands. Meanwhile, a collection of biophysically ill-founded concepts have been considered legitimate, which can now be corrected in the light of recent advances. The relationship of LFPs to their sources is often counterintuitive. For instance, most LFP activity is not local but remote, it may be larger further from rather than close to the source, the polarity does not define its excitatory or inhibitory nature, and the amplitude may increase when source's activity is reduced. As technological developments foster the use of LFPs, the time is now ripe to raise awareness of the need to take into account spatial aspects of these signals and of the errors derived from neglecting to do so.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users 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 1,014 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 1003 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 284 28%
Researcher 162 16%
Student > Master 120 12%
Student > Bachelor 100 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 4%
Other 120 12%
Unknown 188 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 365 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 109 11%
Engineering 108 11%
Psychology 50 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 4%
Other 105 10%
Unknown 235 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,151,857
of 25,563,770 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#32
of 1,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,066
of 422,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,563,770 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,299 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 422,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.