Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2104.10070

Cross-population coupling of neural activity based on Gaussian process current source densities

Abstract

Because local field potentials (LFPs) arise from multiple sources in different spatial locations, they do not easily reveal coordinated activity across neural populations on a trial-to-trial basis. As we show here, however, once disparate source signals are decoupled, their trial-to-trial fluctuations become more accessible, and cross-population correlations become more apparent. To decouple sources we introduce a general framework for estimation of current source densities (CSDs). In this framework, the set of LFPs result from noise being added to the transform of the CSD by a biophysical forward model, while the CSD is considered to be the sum of a zero-mean, stationary, spatiotemporal Gaussian process, having fast and slow components, and a mean function, which is the sum of multiple time-varying functions distributed across space, each varying across trials. We derived biophysical forward models relevant to the data we analyzed. In simulation studies this approach improved identification of source signals compared to existing CSD estimation methods. Using data recorded from primate auditory cortex, we analyzed trial-to-trial fluctuations in both steady-state and task-evoked signals. We found cortical layer-specific phase coupling between two probes and showed that the same analysis applied directly to LFPs did not recover these patterns. We also found task-evoked CSDs to be correlated across probes, at specific cortical depths. Using data from Neuropixels probes in mouse visual areas, we again found evidence for depth-specific phase coupling of primary visual area and lateromedial area based on the CSDs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Natalie Klein, Joshua H. Siegle, Tobias Teichert, Robert E. Kass. 2021-11-08. Cross-population coupling of neural activity based on Gaussian process current source densities. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009601

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗