Ivan Alekseichuk: Dose-dependent effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation on spike timing in awake nonhuman primates
Please post questions here.
Hi Ivan --- great work. Nice that you could even show a correlation between the local field strength and phase locking for the respondings neurons.
@bettina Hi, Bettina! Thanks. There are clearly more factors in play, but local e-field magnitude is an important one.
great work as always. Do you have any additional info about the morphological (or other) differences between responsive and non-responsive neurons in your data? Other than increasing the field strength, what do you think could contribute to having more responsive neurons, e.g., field orientation, frequency...? (I need to read the paper)
@yuranny-cabral-calderin Hi, Yuranny, thank you! The recordings were done in situ, in awake primates, so here we don't have hard data on the recorded cells' morphology. I can only speculate that the neurons that haven't shown phase entrainment either experienced too low electric field (e.g., due to misalignment of the applied electric field and the main somato-dendric axis) or they had low intrinsic sensitivity to 10 Hz AC. Saying that, although not all neurons showed the phase entrainment (aka the "canonical" effect), another effect has emerged - not a phase-dependent increase in burstiness. It is a bit convoluted for the poster, but you may see more in the paper. Nevertheless, we will find a may to look into the morphology in the next study.