Cited by 3Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringNeurological disorders and treatmentsNeural dynamics and brain function

When the ostrich-algorithm fails: blanking method affects spike train statistics.

Open access
Joseph, Kevin, Mottaghi, Soheil, Christ, Olaf, Feuerstein, Thomas J., Hofmann, Ulrich G.·2018·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

. This stimulation produces undesired artifacts and can render the recorded signal only partially useful. The extent of these artifacts is often reduced by temporarily grounding the recording input during stimulation pulses. In the following study, we quantify the effects of this method, "blanking," on the spike count and spike train statistics. Starting from a theoretical standpoint, we calculate a loss in the absolute number of action potentials, depending on: width of the blanking window, frequency of stimulation, and intrinsic neuronal activity. These calculations were then corroborated by actual high signal to noise ratio (SNR) single cell recordings. We state that, for clinically relevant frequencies of 130 Hz (used for movement disorders) and realistic blanking windows of 2 ms, up to 27% of actual existing spikes are lost. We strongly advice cautioned use of the blanking method when spike rate quantification is attempted. IMPACT STATEMENT: Blanking (artifact removal by temporarily grounding input), depending on recording parameters, can lead to significant spike loss. Very careful use of blanking circuits is advised.

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/fnins.2018.00293

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • The artifact problem is worse in multi-channel neural recording and stimulation circuits.

    “This situation is even worse in the multi-channel neural recording and stimulation circuit (Ng et al., 2012; Joseph et al., 2018).”

    From Advances in Neural Recording and Stimulation Integrated Circuits (2021) · cites this paper as Joseph et al., 2018

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

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joseph, K., Mottaghi, S., Christ, O., Feuerstein, T. J., & Hofmann, U. G.
Affiliations
University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Mottaghi, Soheil
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2018-04-30
Volume
12
Pages
293-293
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952891224
Cited by
3
References
55
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neurological disorders and treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
blanking, stimulation artifacts, spike train statistics, single-unit recording, stimulation frequency, movement disorders

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