The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Power-Law Scaling and Neuronal Avalanches Arise from Stochastic Dynamics?
Open accessAbstract
The presence of self-organized criticality in biology is often evidenced by a power-law scaling of event size distributions, which can be measured by linear regression on logarithmic axes. We show here that such a procedure does not necessarily mean that the system exhibits self-organized criticality. We first provide an analysis of multisite local field potential (LFP) recordings of brain activity and show that event size distributions defined as negative LFP peaks can be close to power-law distributions. However, this result is not robust to change in detection threshold, or when tested using more rigorous statistical analyses such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Similar power-law scaling is observed for surrogate signals, suggesting that power-law scaling may be a generic property of thresholded stochastic processes. We next investigate this problem analytically, and show that, indeed, stochastic processes can produce spurious power-law scaling without the presence of underlying self-organized criticality. However, this power-law is only apparent in logarithmic representations, and does not survive more rigorous analysis such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The same analysis was also performed on an artificial network known to display self-organized criticality. In this case, both the graphical representations and the rigorous statistical analysis reveal with no ambiguity that the avalanche size is distributed as a power-law. We conclude that logarithmic representations can lead to spurious power-law scaling induced by the stochastic nature of the phenomenon. This apparent power-law scaling does not constitute a proof of self-organized criticality, which should be demonstrated by more stringent statistical tests.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Minimum Description Length Principle
Grünwald, P. D. (2007) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4643.001.0001 · Cited by 1,644
Destexhe, A., Contreras, D., & Steriade, M. (1999) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.19-11-04595.1999 · Cited by 573
Cited by
Functional and Effective Connectivity: A Review
Friston, K. J. (2011) · Brain Connectivity · doi:10.1089/brain.2011.0008 · Cited by 3,415
Emergent complex neural dynamics
Chialvo, D. R. (2010) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/nphys1803 · Cited by 1,165
Inferring synaptic excitation/inhibition balance from field potentials
Gao, R., Peterson, E. J., & Voytek, B. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.078 · Cited by 991
Being Critical of Criticality in the Brain
Beggs, J. M., & Timme, N. (2012) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2012.00163 · Cited by 494
Self-organized criticality as a fundamental property of neural systems
Hesse, J., & Gross, T. (2014) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00166 · Cited by 440
Metadata
- Authors
- Touboul, J., & Destexhe, A.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2010-02-11
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e8982
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2054197488
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Can Power-Law Scaling and Neuronal Avalanches Arise from Stochastic Dynamics? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0008982
- The paper
- Touboul, J., & Destexhe, A. (2010). Can Power-Law Scaling and Neuronal Avalanches Arise from Stochastic Dynamics? PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008982
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.