Talk:Single-unit recording

Merge Cellular recording

I propose that the newly created stub Cellular recording be merged into (and made a redirect to) here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Another merge

Having gotten around to the merge above, I realize that we also have Single-cell recording, which should also be merged here. It contains some sourced information on history etc. that should be incorporated in the merge. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge Extracellular field potential

And yet another merge. Extracellular field potential is about exactly the same thing: it's what single-unit recording records. And, unlike local field potential, it's a relatively uncommon term, because for single cells, it's typically just the "extracellular potential". Calling it a "field" is somewhat strange. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: it seems to me that Extracellular field potential would be better merged to Local field potential as there is no referenced distinction between them. They describe the same type of recording and distinguishing not all authors distinguish between them in the same way. While it is true that single-unit recording are frequently made with extracellular electrodes, they can also be made with intracellular electrodes, as the current article mentions.

Furthermore, the term "extracellular field potential" is also being used to describe potentials close to non-neuronal excitable cells, even in the abscence of nearby axons or terminals; see, for example:

• Abi-Gerges, N; Pointon, A; Oldman, KL; Brown, MR; Pilling, MA; Sefton, CE; Garside, H; Pollard, CE (2016). "Assessment of extracellular field potential and Ca²⁺ transient signals for early QT/pro-arrhythmia detection using human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes". Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods. 83: 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.vascn.2016.09.001. PMID 27622857.

Here are some using the 'extracellular field potential' to measure 'field' EPSPs (not distinguishing single units), and where the term is indistinguishable from local field potentials:

• Abrahamsson, T; Lalanne, T; Watt, AJ; Sjöström, PJ (1 June 2016). "Long-Term Potentiation by Theta-Burst Stimulation Using Extracellular Field Potential Recordings in Acute Hippocampal Slices". Cold Spring Harbor protocols. 2016 (6). doi:10.1101/pdb.prot091298. PMID 27250947.
• Podvalny, E; Noy, N; Harel, M; Bickel, S; Chechik, G; Schroeder, CE; Mehta, AD; Tsodyks, M; Malach, R (July 2015). "A unifying principle underlying the extracellular field potential spectral responses in the human cortex". Journal of neurophysiology. 114 (1): 505–19. doi:10.1152/jn.00943.2014. PMID 25855698. Klbrain (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Klbrain (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That's OK with me. Frankly, this was so long ago that I forgot about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Scope and terminology

With the inclusion of intracellular and combined recording methods, this page seems to me to have become about electrophysiological recordings from single cells. Maybe my experience with the subject is out-of-date, but the term "single unit" refers to something more specific than that. It has clasically meant extracellular recording within a tissue that has many neurons (typically brains in vivo), in which the potential from a single neuron is recorded in isolation. The word "unit" is used to indicate that a single cell is not actually visualized, but is instead inferred from the characteristics of the recording. Think: the kind of recordings Hubel and Weisel made in the visual cortex. I'm concerned that through OR this page has become too broad in scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)