Cited by 255Neural dynamics and brain functionFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Neural masses and fields in dynamic causal modeling

Open access
Moran, Rosalyn, Pinotsis, Dimitris A., Friston, Karl·2013·Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience

Abstract

Dynamic causal modeling (DCM) provides a framework for the analysis of effective connectivity among neuronal subpopulations that subtend invasive (electrocorticograms and local field potentials) and non-invasive (electroencephalography and magnetoencephalography) electrophysiological responses. This paper reviews the suite of neuronal population models including neural masses, fields and conductance-based models that are used in DCM. These models are expressed in terms of sets of differential equations that allow one to model the synaptic underpinnings of connectivity. We describe early developments using neural mass models, where convolution-based dynamics are used to generate responses in laminar-specific populations of excitatory and inhibitory cells. We show that these models, though resting on only two simple transforms, can recapitulate the characteristics of both evoked and spectral responses observed empirically. Using an identical neuronal architecture, we show that a set of conductance based models-that consider the dynamics of specific ion-channels-present a richer space of responses; owing to non-linear interactions between conductances and membrane potentials. We propose that conductance-based models may be more appropriate when spectra present with multiple resonances. Finally, we outline a third class of models, where each neuronal subpopulation is treated as a field; in other words, as a manifold on the cortical surface. By explicitly accounting for the spatial propagation of cortical activity through partial differential equations (PDEs), we show that the topology of connectivity-through local lateral interactions among cortical layers-may be inferred, even in the absence of spatially resolved data. We also show that these models allow for a detailed analysis of structure-function relationships in the cortex. Our review highlights the relationship among these models and how the hypothesis asked of empirical data suggests an appropriate model class.

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 · 10.3389/fncom.2013.00057

Cites

101 of 101 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?

  • By adjusting a few key parameters such as the gain of neuronal populations that carry error signals, mean-field models can simulate how precision is encoded and modulated in the brain.

    “By adjusting a few key parameters (like the gain of neuronal populations that carry error signals), these models can simulate how precision (confidence) is encoded and modulated in the brain (21, 22).”

    From Predictive coding and neurocomputational psychiatry: a mechanistic framework for understanding mental disorders (2026) · cites this paper as [21]

    The ERP-model section (page unavailable) describes a parameter controlling neuronal subpopulation gain and discusses models of sensory prediction-error responses. The mean-field section describes simulations of population dynamics. Neither section links the gain of error-carrying populations to precision or says these models simulate how precision is encoded and modulated. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moran, R., Pinotsis, D. A., & Friston, K.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Moran, Rosalyn
Venue
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
Published
2013
Volume
7
Pages
57-57
ISSN
1662-5188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142039948
Cited by
255
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 3
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (091593, 088130)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
dynamic causal modeling, neural mass model, neural field models, conductance-based models, effective connectivity, ion channel dynamics, multiple resonances, structure-function relationship, EEG, magnetoencephalography, local field potentials, electrocorticography

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