Electrophysiological study demonstrates that field complexity tracks neuronal dimensionality in mice across arousal states, indicating reliable within-brain monitoring.
Perturbational complexity is measured from field potentials, yet the quantity of interest lives in neuronal populations. Whether the field-level measurement reflects the reproducible richness of the underlying spiking activity - or a field-specific shadow - had never been tested, because it requires both signals in the same brain during the same perturbations across arousal states. Using the open Allen Institute dataset (DANDI 000458: simultaneous 30-channel epidural EEG and hundreds of Neuropixels single units in head-fixed mice during cortical electrical stimulation, awake and under isoflurane), this preprint computes debiased reproducible dimensionality (R-dim) from sorted spiking populations on exactly the matched trial sets of the author's published EEG analysis, under a preregistration sealed before any spike time was read. Results (n = 15 animals): levels do not correspond across animals (Spearman +0.25, n.s.) - both level quantities scale with their own, independent coverage; the state contrast has a genuine neuronal counterpart (spiking R-dim 8.48 awake vs 4.69 under isoflurane, p = 0.0027), spiking dimensionality runs about 3x the simultaneous field value, and within-animal state effects couple across levels (+0.64, p = 0.0054). The pattern survives both preregistered bin sizes. The minority of animals in which anesthesia increased field dimensionality showed the same reversal in their neurons (3/3); labeled exploratory analyses show spontaneous firing was suppressed uniformly across animals while evoked-response attenuation varied 1.1-7.9x and the state effect followed that attenuation: where the anesthetic failed to suppress responsiveness, dimensionality persisted. Practical conclusion: field-level complexity should not be compared across recordings, but it is a faithful within-brain tracker of neuronal dimensionality change - precisely the clinically relevant use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicolás Federico Galindez (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: