ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Single pointwise samples of electric field on a neuron model cannot predict activation threshold by brain stimulation.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome computational models of neural activation by transcranial magnetic stimulation overestimate the electric field (E-field) threshold compared to in vivo measurements. A recent study proposed a statistical method to account for the influence of microscopic perturbations to the E-field. The method, however, relies on the unsubstantiated assumption that thresholds can be predicted by single pointwise samples of the E-field strength along neural cables.
objectiveWe analyzed neural responses to E-field with microscopic perturbations and demonstrate via theoretical derivation and simulations that neural activation is not determined by pointwise E-field amplitude but rather by spatial integration of the E-field along the neural cable. Therefore, the influence of microscopic E-field perturbations is negligible due to the spatiotemporal filtering by the neural membrane and axoplasm.
methodsWe derive the axial and transmembrane currents in a neural cable for an imposed E-field with microscopic perturbations. We simulate neural activation thresholds of unmyelinated and myelinated axons in two stimulation scenarios and compare thresholds for E-field activation with and without perturbations.
resultsIn the theoretical derivation, the perturbation terms average out to zero on larger spatial scales indicating that they do not influence neural activation thresholds. Simulated thresholds with the E-field spatial perturbations present had negligible differences (< 3.4%) compared to those without.
conclusionSingle point samples of the microscopic E-field on a neural cable cannot predict neural activation thresholds. Neural simulations should be used to determine any influence of the E-field spatial perturbations. The latter, however, are unlikely to account for the difference between experimental and simulated E-field thresholds.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.