New paper!
Cytoelectric Coupling: Electric fields sculpt neural activity and “tune” the brain’s infrastructure.

Brain waves carry info and alter the brain on the molecular level. This tunes the cytoskeleton, optimizing network function.

Work by Dimitris Pinotsis.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2023.102465

@ekmiller I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: spikes will turn out to be explanatory epiphenomena as substrate-independent electrical activity will be the explananda for cognition
@dbarack @ekmiller
Fascinating! Did you write it down somewhere citable? (and if not, nudge).

@NicoleCRust @dbarack @ekmiller

Here are two more (older) data points on the causal effects of weak electric fields ...

on spikes:
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/45/15067

and network activity:
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/11/3030

Low-Intensity Electrical Stimulation Affects Network Dynamics by Modulating Population Rate and Spike Timing

Clinical effects of transcranial electrical stimulation with weak currents are remarkable considering the low amplitude of the electric fields acting on the brain. Elucidating the processes by which small currents affect ongoing brain activity is of paramount importance for the rational design of noninvasive electrotherapeutic strategies and to determine the relevance of endogenous fields. We propose that in active neuronal networks, weak electrical fields induce small but coherent changes in the firing rate and timing of neuronal populations that can be magnified by dynamic network activity. Specifically, we show that carbachol-induced gamma oscillations (25–35 Hz) in rat hippocampal slices have an inherent rate-limiting dynamic and timing precision that govern susceptibility to low-frequency weak electric fields (<50 Hz; <10 V/m). This leads to a range of nonlinear responses, including the following: (1) asymmetric power modulation by DC fields resulting from balanced excitation and inhibition; (2) symmetric power modulation by lower frequency AC fields with a net-zero change in firing rate; and (3) half-harmonic oscillations for higher frequency AC fields resulting from increased spike timing precision. These underlying mechanisms were elucidated by slice experiments and a parsimonious computational network model of single-compartment spiking neurons responding to electric field stimulation with small incremental polarization. Intracellular recordings confirmed model predictions on neuronal timing and rate changes, as well as spike phase-entrainment resonance at 0.2 V/m. Finally, our data and mechanistic framework provide a functional role for endogenous electric fields, specifically illustrating that modulation of gamma oscillations during theta-modulated gamma activity can result from field effects alone.

Journal of Neuroscience

@lcparra @NicoleCRust @dbarack @ekmiller In 2005 or 2006 I saw a talk given at Stanford by a physicist named Jose Acacio de Barros, who, as I recall, discussed the possibility that synchronized firing in a given cortical column could influence activity in other, more distal neurons. 20 years have intervened and my memory for the details of the talk is not as strong as for the impression it made on me, a pre-PhD RA, about the incredible range of possibility in neuroscience. Anyway, after seeing these threads, I decided to email him this morning. He just responded with some relevant citations:

Suppes, P., de Barros, J. A., & Oas, G. (2012). Phase-oscillator computations as neural models of stimulus-response conditioning and response selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(2), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.01.001

E. Vassilieva, G. Pinto, J. de Barros, and P. Suppes, "Learning Pattern Recognition Through Quasi-Synchronization of Phase Oscillators," in IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 84-95, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1109/TNN.2010.2086476

Hope these are of interest!