Multiple time scales of temporal response in pyramidal and fast spiking cortical neurons

Neural dynamic processes correlated over several time scales are found in vivo, in stimulus-evoked as well as spontaneous activity, and are thought to affect the way sensory stimulation is processed. Despite their potential computational consequences, a systematic description of the presence of multiple time scales in single cortical neurons is lacking. In this study, we injected fast spiking and pyramidal (PYR) neurons in vitro with long-lasting episodes of step-like and noisy, in-vivo-like current. Several processes shaped the time course of the instantaneous spike frequency, which could be reduced to a small number (1-4) of phenomenological mechanisms, either reducing (adapting) or increasing (facilitating) the neuron's firing rate over time. The different adaptation/facilitation processes cover a wide range of time scales, ranging from initial adaptation (<10 ms, PYR neurons only), to fast adaptation (<300 ms), early facilitation (0.5-1 s, PYR only), and slow (or late) adaptation (order of seconds). These processes are characterized by broad distributions of their magnitudes and time constants across cells, showing that multiple time scales are at play in cortical neurons, even in response to stationary stimuli and in the presence of input fluctuations. These processes might be part of a cascade of processes responsible for the power-law behavior of adaptation observed in several preparations, and may have far-reaching computational consequences that have been recently described.

Brain connectivity at different time-scales measured with EEG

We present an overview of different methods for decomposing a multichannel spontaneous electroencephalogram (EEG) into sets of temporal patterns and topographic distributions. All of the methods presented here consider the scalp electric field as the basic analysis entity in space. In time, the resolution of the methods is between milliseconds (time-domain analysis), subseconds (time- and frequency-domain analysis) and seconds (frequency-domain analysis). For any of these methods, we show that large parts of the data can be explained by a small number of topographic distributions. Physically, this implies that the brain regions that generated one of those topographies must have been active with a common phase. If several brain regions are producing EEG signals at the same time and frequency, they have a strong tendency to do this in a synchronized mode. This view is illustrated by several examples (including combined EEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)) and a selective review of the literature. The findings are discussed in terms of short-lasting binding between different brain regions through synchronized oscillations, which could constitute a mechanism to form transient, functional neurocognitive networks.

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

OBJECTIVE: To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Observer agreement study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. DATA EXTRACTION: Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. RESULTS: The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.