Cited by 63Memory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory Processes and Influences

In vivo ephaptic coupling allows memory network formation

Open access
Pinotsis, Dimitris A, Miller, Earl K·2023·Cerebral Cortex

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

It is increasingly clear that memories are distributed across multiple brain areas. Such “engram complexes” are important features of memory formation and consolidation. Here, we test the hypothesis that engram complexes are formed in part by bioelectric fields that sculpt and guide the neural activity and tie together the areas that participate in engram complexes. Like the conductor of an orchestra, the fields influence each musician or neuron and orchestrate the output, the symphony. Our results use the theory of synergetics, machine learning, and data from a spatial delayed saccade task and provide evidence for in vivo ephaptic coupling in memory representations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhad251

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ephaptic coupling can generate the synchronization of action potential firing in neurons.

    “Ephaptic coupling can generate the synchronization of action potential firing in neurons.”

    From Coupling quantum-like cognition with the neuronal networks within generalized probability theory (2025) · cites this paper as Pinotsis and Miller (2023)

    The Introduction says electric fields control neural activity and oscillations through ephaptic coupling, and the Discussion suggests they can control neuronal spiking. Neither passage says that ephaptic coupling synchronizes action-potential firing across neurons; the Discussion’s mention of oscillatory synchrony concerns earlier work, not that mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Pinotsis and Miller (2023) provide evidence for in vivo ephaptic coupling in memory representations.

    “Our results ... provide evidence for in vivo ephaptic coupling in memory representations”
  • Ephaptic coupling between neuronal structures in the brain leads to communication between neuronal networks that differs from direct communication systems based on physical connections like electrical synapses and chemical synapses.

    “This coupling leads to communication between neuronal networks that differs from direct communication systems based on the physical connections like electrical synapses and chemical synapses.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 145 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. James W. The principles of Psychology. Vol. 2; 1890. p. 94.
  2. Nunez PL. Macro-neocortical dynamics, cognition, and EEG. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Bioelectromagnetism. IEEE, Vol. 45–46; 1998. p. 204.
  3. Rall W. Cable theory for dendritic neurons. In: Methods in neuronal modelling: from ions to networks. Vol. 27; 1998. Chapter 2.
  4. Semon R, Duffy B, Lee V. Mnemic psychology. Abingdon: Routledge; 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinotsis, D. A., & Miller, E. K.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Pinotsis, Dimitris A
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2023-07-07
Volume
33
Issue
17
Pages
9877-9895
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W4383615353
Cited by
62
References
145
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
  • The JPB Foundation
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-22-1-2453)
  • UKRI (ES/T01279X/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
ephaptic coupling, distributed memory, bioelectric fields, synergetics, memory consolidation
MeSH terms
Memory Consolidation, Brain, Neurons

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review