For a whole brain model, one needs to reduce the high dimensional behaviour of local neural populations to a few variables, typically mean firing rates of excitatory and inhibitory neurons
Nothing unusual about this so-called mean field reduction, employed all over the place in complex systems + based on simple assumptions of weakening correlations over increasing system size
Here we use a conductance-based mean field model of a small patch of cortex
Tune the parameters of your mean field model to values consistent with their known physiological settings and observe the ensuing local population dynamics
Cover the cortex with these local mean field population models and couple them together via long-range anatomical connections (i.e. through the connectome)
Large-scale waves of varying patterns (breathers, travelling waves, spirals) spontaneously emerge across a broad sweep of parameter values and biologically human connectomes
Cortical waves occur across species, functions, conscious states, regions, and data modalities
The excitable nature of neuronal activity plus the strongly distance-dependent nature of cortical connection density is a sufficient cause for these
Whole-brain wave patterns in this model are briefly stable, before collapsing with replacement by a new whole brain pattern
Extract an order parameter (a measure of large-scale low entropy) shows a natural partition of these dynamics into brief "metastable" states
To visualise these dynamics, use the Hilbert transform to extract local phase vectors from each node, then techniques from optic flows to find the underlying dynamic streamlines
These flow from sources, spirals, nodes & sinks, forming an underlying dynamic scaffold
Boom! A sort of spatiotemporal turbulence
Collisions between transiently stable fixed points, saddles + rotors (spirals) yield the metastable transitions observed in the order parameter
Recurrence plots (top left, which detect recurring patterns in spatiotemporal data) benchmarked against phase randomized surrogate data (top right) reveal a relatively small repertoire of such metastable states
While basically every step here involves debatable assumptions, the key principle is the collapse of the brain's extraordinarily high dimension onto a relatively low dimensional & metastable dynamic manifold: This core process does not depend upon specific details
There is a long history of cortical waves - read our effort (& references to others' work) here: nature.com/articles/s4146…
Download the sample connectome and simulate these models here: bdtoolbox.org
Cudos to my former post-docs James Roberts + Leo Gollo
You can pull apart some of the underlying assumptions (& the source material by those who founded the field) here:
One hundred years of wave equations of physical systems from Schrödinger's model of the atom to neural field theory of the brain
Both formulations predict that the system's expressed energy is constrained into natural modes - "eigenstates - determined by the system's geometry
This paper led by @AFornito@jchrispang & @Kevin_M_Aquino with @bendfulcher & @M_Oldehinkel shows that solutions of the Helmholtz equation on the cortical geometry outperform competing approaches across a diverse range of task & resting state fMRI data
Remarkably (!!) geometric modes quickly outperform and show stronger out-of-sample generalization than principal components of the functional data themselves
Fact: Success rates for female candidates in Australia's principal fellowship scheme was a diabolic 6.5% last year - the lowest in the history of this scheme & likely the lowest for any advanced economy in the world
"How to cover letter"; a brief thread from a scientific editor's perspective
Yes, in brief editors do read cover letters although like myself, most pay far less attention than to the abstract and main elements of the paper!
First, a few "do's"
1. Address the editorial team - as EiC I don't mind "Dear Editorial Team, [journal name]" or "Dear Dr Breakspear"
2. State the [article title]
3. Briefly, any caveats about the submission (is it invited? + by which editor?)
*State if it's a resubmission following appeal*
4. A ~3 sentence paragraph that summarises the overarching objectives, findings & significance of the paper. As if you are describing it to a colleague in a slightly different discipline. No value in over selling it. Don't use jargon. Don't paste in the abstract!
As an editor and author I have seen many revised papers return to journals. Given effort, most go well (ie step toward acceptance). Some go pear-shaped. I’ve slowly improved and have an approach known by my group as the ‘Breakspear method”. Here is its essence
1/ Aim for 1 round of revisions. Make the 1st response a big one. Be prepared to do as much work on the revisions as you did for the paper. It might be an overshoot, but it’s way better than going back again, which gets messier each time, or even worse, a “revision rejected”
2/ Approach the revision as a way of improving the paper, not as a way of placating the editors and reviewers. Despite it's caveats, IMO constructive peer review followed by careful revisions almost always makes the paper better: More accurate, clearer and better contextualized.