Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log out
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
    • Special Collections
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
    • Editorial Board
    • ECR Advisory Board
    • Journal Staff
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
    • Accessibility
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

Intracortical Localization of a Promising Pain Biomarker

Christopher Joseph Black
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2020, 40 (50) 9549-9551; https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1520-20.2020
Christopher Joseph Black
School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Pain is a highly subjective experience that arises from the integration of emotional, cognitive, and sensory processes. Therefore, the painfulness of a given stimulus can be perceived differently across individuals. Although a patient's verbalization of pain is necessary for clinical diagnoses, individual subjectivity can obscure the underlying cause of pain. For this reason, neuroimaging methods, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and magnetoencephalography (MEG), have been used to identify objective pain “biomarkers” that can decouple the subjective reports from the neural mechanisms that drive pain (Tracey et al., 2019).

Gamma-band oscillations (GBOs) in the 30–100 Hz range recorded epidurally over human primary somatosensory cortex (S1) are a potentially promising pain biomarker. The magnitude of GBOs recorded over S1 is correlated with perceived pain in humans given noxious stimulation (Gross et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2012; Heid et al., 2020). In addition, electrocorticography (ECoG) recordings over rodent S1 have shown that GBO power correlates with hyperalgesia in models of chronic pain (Wang et al., 2016). Although these results suggest that epidurally recorded GBOs reflect the processing of noxious stimuli in S1, the exact intracortical source of these GBOs is highly debated. Importantly, reports using human EEG have localized nociception-related GBOs to primary motor cortex (M1) during acute pain (Schulz et al., 2012), and to prefrontal cortex in patients with chronic pain (Zhou et al., 2018). These results suggest that GBOs reflect changes in motor output and cognitive function that are pertinent for behavioral adaptations to pain, such as stimulus avoidance. Whether epidurally recorded GBOs can be used as an objective pain biomarker critically depends on identifying the cortical regions from which these oscillations emerge.

Recently, Yue et al. (2020) addressed this issue by performing chronic multilevel electrophysiology in awake, behaving rodents. The authors simultaneously recorded epidural potentials over sensorimotor areas with ECoG, and recorded spiking activity and local field potentials (LFPs) in superficial layers (II–IV) and deep layers (V/VI) of bilateral M1 and S1 with intracortical microelectrodes while rats received a noxious laser stimulus to the forepaw. On trials where rats displayed a nocifensive paw withdrawal response, laser-evoked GBOs increased in magnitude throughout layers in both contralateral and ipsilateral M1 and S1, with the strongest effect occurring in the superficial layers of contralateral S1.

To determine how these laser-evoked intracortical GBOs corresponded to epidurally recorded GBOs, Yue et al. (2020) performed a cross-correlation analysis between the instantaneous amplitude of GBOs in the ECoG recordings and the LFP recordings from intracortical sites. They found a significant correlation between the ECoG signals and the LFP signals recorded from the superficial layers of contralateral S1, but not the LFP signals recorded from other intracortical regions. Importantly, intracortically recorded GBOs in superficial, contralateral S1 preceded the ECoG GBOs by >5 ms, suggesting that this region of S1 is the primary intracortical source of nociception-related epidurally recorded GBOs. This cross-correlation analysis was further supported by results that compared the phases of oscillatory activity in S1 and ECoG recordings. Using a measure of phase synchronization, the authors showed that GBOs recorded in superficial, contralateral S1 exhibited significant phase consistency with epidurally recorded GBOs.

The authors then examined intracortical spiking activity to identify what neuronal subtypes contributed to the nociception-related GBOs. By sorting individual spikes based on peak-to-trough duration, they were able to identify putative pyramidal-cell spikes and fast-spiking interneuron spikes across all microelectrode recording sites. Importantly, putative interneurons in superficial, contralateral S1 were significantly activated by noxious stimulation, and their firing rates were phase locked with the epidurally recorded GBOs.

The recording methods implemented by Yue et al. (2020) allowed direct investigation of the intracortical circuits driving epidurally recorded GBOs during acute pain processing. Their analyses suggest not only that epidurally recorded oscillations reflect activity localized to contralateral S1 and not M1, but also that they are correlated with the activity of putative fast-spiking interneurons residing in the superficial layers of S1.

The results presented by Yue et al. (2020) provide a rationale for using epidurally recorded GBOs to objectively identify pain, but several questions remain. First, what objective features can be extrapolated from epidurally recorded GBOs? The finding that epidurally recorded GBOs originate from S1, which is thought to be responsible for processing the intensity, location, modality, and the presence of innocuous and noxious stimuli (Eto et al., 2011; Vierck et al., 2013; Jin et al., 2018), suggests that one might be able to derive sensory features of painful stimuli from epidurally recorded GBOs. Consistent with this, noxious stimulus intensity has been found to correlate with GBO magnitude recorded over S1 in human MEG (Gross et al., 2007).

Combining measures of GBOs with measures of additional oscillatory or evoked signals might increase the specificity and sensitivity of an objective pain measure (Tracey et al., 2019). One possible measure is theta–gamma coupling, which has been proposed to organize and relay various features of sensory information by activating neuronal ensembles in specific patterns (Lisman and Jensen, 2013). Notably, theta–gamma cross-frequency coupling in S1 occurs in both acute (Wang et al., 2011) and chronic (Wang et al., 2016) models of pain. It is possible that features of noxious stimuli such as intensity or type (e.g., thermal or mechanical) are represented in different phase-locked cycles in a theta–gamma complex. Combining epidurally recorded GBOs with other potential biomarkers would provide greater dimensionality when decoding objective information about pain from EEG or MEG recordings.

The result from Yue et al. (2020) showing that superficial fast-spiking S1 interneuron activity is correlated with epidurally recorded GBOs is in line with canonical mechanisms of sensory perception. Specifically, synchronization of fast-spiking parvalbumin-expressing (PV) interneurons at gamma oscillations regulate cortical information flow by eliciting temporal precision of spiking in excitatory pyramidal cells through inhibition (Hasenstaub et al., 2005). Therefore, gamma oscillations could produce high-fidelity, neocortical transmission of nociceptive information, such as pain intensity, by increasing the spike-timing precision of excitatory pyramidal cells through fast-spiking PV synchrony. In line with this theory, Tan et al. (2019) found that the entrainment of gamma oscillations in S1 using photostimulation of fast-spiking PV interneurons has been shown to enhance nociceptive behaviors in mice in both acute and inflammatory models of pain. But gamma entrainment in fast-spiking layer II/III PV interneurons in mouse barrel cortex have also been found to facilitate tactile detection (Siegle et al., 2014). This raises another question: are epidurally recorded GBOs specifically tied to nociception, or are they a neural mechanism associated with general information processing in S1?

Although several studies have tied gamma oscillations to different types of sensory processes in S1, such as tactile detection and nociception, it is possible that distinct sensory percepts are encoded within certain GBO features. For example, human EEG recordings over somatosensory cortex show that noxious stimuli elicit GBOs at ∼80 Hz, while innocuous stimuli elicit GBOs at ∼70 Hz (Michail et al., 2016). These results indicate that GBO frequency is tuned in a stimulus-dependent manner. Interestingly, sensory information entering S1 is sorted into separate cortical layers. Anatomical tracing has shown that noxious information arrives at the superficial layers of S1, while innocuous information arrives predominantly at the middle layers of S1 (Vierck et al., 2013). These different cortical layers also have distinct microcircuit connectivity that can give rise to different neural dynamics. For example, regular-spiking somatostatin-positive (SOM) interneurons in layer IV of S1, which modulate fast cortical oscillations (Lee et al., 2018), strongly inhibit PV interneurons, while SOM interneurons in layers II/III do not (Xu et al., 2013). Therefore, noxious and innocuous stimuli could differentially regulate fast-spiking interneuron activity to produce GBOs at different frequencies through the activation of regular-spiking inhibitory interneurons in different cortical layers. Testing this theory would require further dissection of the interneuron circuitry in S1. In this regard, one limitation of the study by Yue et al. (2020) is that extracellular electrophysiology has poor cell specificity and can only be used to identify neurons by their spike waveform (Nowak et al., 2003). While the fast-spiking phenotype in S1 is unique to PV interneurons (Puig et al., 2008; Rudy et al., 2011), the regular-spiking phenotype is expressed by a range of interneuron subtypes. Therefore, cell-specific techniques, such as optogenetics and calcium imaging, are needed alongside epidural recordings to determine the contribution of regular-spiking interneurons, such as SOM cells, in modulating GBOs.

Perhaps the most pertinent question not addressed by Yue et al. (2020) is how reliable are epidurally recorded GBOs as a biomarker for chronic (as opposed to acute) pain? As previously mentioned, superficial S1 PV interneurons have been linked to cortical GBOs in rodent chronic inflammatory pain models (Tan et al., 2019), so it is possible that epidurally recorded GBOs can serve as a reliable biomarker that reflect the same intracortical mechanisms for both acute and chronic pain. However, neural recordings in rodent S1 show that models of chronic neuropathic pain are correlated with reduced fast-spiking PV interneuron activity (Cichon et al., 2017) and increased 4–8 Hz LFP oscillations (Leblanc et al., 2014). Furthermore, the transition from acute to chronic pain initiates global changes in brain dynamics and connectivity (Kuner and Flor, 2016), so similar epidural signals may reflect vastly different cellular mechanisms. These global changes are also not conserved across pain pathologies; human fMRI has shown that brain activation of patients varies between conditions of neuralgia, chronic back pain, and osteoarthritis (Apkarian et al., 2011). The heterogeneity of brain activity underlying different subtypes of chronic pain suggests that epidural GBOs are not a universal biomarker for chronic pain, but may serve instead as a biomarker for subtypes of chronic pain that exhibit fast-spiking interneuron dynamics similar to those described in acute pain processing.

By identifying an intracortical, cellular source of epidurally recorded GBOs, the results presented by Yue et al. (2020) support the potential use of GBOs as an objective biomarker for acute pain. However, additional investigation into analytical methods to extract sensory features from oscillatory activity, the underlying interneuron circuit dynamics, and the link between acute and chronic pain processing will be necessary to expand the utility and our understanding of nociception-related, epidurally recorded GBOs.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short reviews of recent JNeurosci articles, written exclusively by students or postdoctoral fellows, summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. If the authors of the highlighted article have written a response to the Journal Club, the response can be found by viewing the Journal Club at www.jneurosci.org. For more information on the format, review process, and purpose of Journal Club articles, please see http://jneurosci.org/content/jneurosci-journal-club.

  • The author declares no competing financial interests.

  • This work was supported by National Institutes of Health NINDS BRAIN Initiative under grant 1R01NS108414-01. I would like to thank Dr. David A. Borton for support on this project and Dr. Jacqueline Hynes and Dr. Hyeyoung Shin for insightful comments on this manuscript.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Christopher Joseph Black at christopher_black{at}brown.edu

References

  1. ↵
    1. Apkarian AV,
    2. Hashmi JA,
    3. Baliki MN
    (2011) Pain and the brain: specificity and plasticity of the brain in clinical chronic pain. Pain 152:S49–S64. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.010 pmid:21146929
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Cichon J,
    2. Blanck TJJ,
    3. Gan W-B,
    4. Yang G
    (2017) Activation of cortical somatostatin interneurons prevents the development of neuropathic pain. Nat Neurosci 20:1122–1132. doi:10.1038/nn.4595 pmid:28671692
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Eto K,
    2. Wake H,
    3. Watanabe M,
    4. Ishibashi H,
    5. Noda M,
    6. Yanagawa Y,
    7. Nabekura J
    (2011) Inter-regional contribution of enhanced activity of the primary somatosensory cortex to the anterior cingulate cortex accelerates chronic pain behavior. J Neurosci 31:7631–7636. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0946-11.2011 pmid:21613476
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Gross J,
    2. Schnitzler A,
    3. Timmermann L,
    4. Ploner M
    (2007) Gamma oscillations in human primary somatosensory cortex reflect pain perception. PLoS Biol 5:e133. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050133 pmid:17456008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hasenstaub A,
    2. Shu Y,
    3. Haider B,
    4. Kraushaar U,
    5. Duque A,
    6. McCormick DA
    (2005) Inhibitory postsynaptic potentials carry synchronized frequency information in active cortical networks. Neuron 47:423–435. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.06.016 pmid:16055065
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Heid C,
    2. Mouraux A,
    3. Treede RD,
    4. Schuh-Hofer S,
    5. Rupp A,
    6. Baumgärtner U
    (2020) Early gamma-oscillations as correlate of localized nociceptive processing in primary sensorimotor cortex. J Neurophysiol 123:1711–1726. doi:10.1152/jn.00444.2019 pmid:32208893
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Jin QQ,
    2. Wu GQ,
    3. Peng WW,
    4. Xia XL,
    5. Hu L,
    6. Iannetti GD
    (2018) Somatotopic representation of second pain in the primary somatosensory cortex of humans and rodents. J Neurosci 38:5538–5550. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3654-17.2018 pmid:29899034
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Kuner R,
    2. Flor H
    (2016) Structural plasticity and reorganisation in chronic pain. Nat Rev Neurosci 18:20–30. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.162 pmid:27974843
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Leblanc BW,
    2. Lii TR,
    3. Silverman AE,
    4. Alleyne RT,
    5. Saab CY
    (2014) Cortical theta is increased while thalamocortical coherence is decreased in rat models of acute and chronic pain. Pain 155:773–782. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2014.01.013 pmid:24457192
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Lee B,
    2. Shin D,
    3. Gross SP,
    4. Cho K-H
    (2018) Combined positive and negative feedback allows modulation of neuronal oscillation frequency during sensory processing. Cell Rep 25:1548–1560.e3. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.029 pmid:30404009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lisman JE,
    2. Jensen O
    (2013) The θ-γ neural code. Neuron 77:1002–1016. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.007 pmid:23522038
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Michail G,
    2. Dresel C,
    3. Witkovský V,
    4. Stankewitz A,
    5. Schulz E
    (2016) Neuronal oscillations in various frequency bands differ between pain and touch. Front Hum Neurosci 10:182. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00182 pmid:27199705
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Nowak LG,
    2. Azouz R,
    3. Sanchez-Vives MV,
    4. Gray CM,
    5. McCormick DA
    (2003) Electrophysiological classes of cat primary visual cortical neurons in vivo as revealed by quantitative analyses. J Neurophysiol 89:1541–1566. doi:10.1152/jn.00580.2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Puig MV,
    2. Ushimaru M,
    3. Kawaguchi Y
    (2008) Two distinct activity patterns of fast-spiking interneurons during neocortical UP states. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:8428–8433. doi:10.1073/pnas.0712219105
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Rudy B,
    2. Fishell G,
    3. Lee S,
    4. Hjerling-Leffler J
    (2011) Three groups of interneurons account for nearly 100% of neocortical GABAergic neurons. Dev Neurobiol 71:45–61. doi:10.1002/dneu.20853 pmid:21154909
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Schulz E,
    2. Tiemann L,
    3. Witkovsky V,
    4. Schmidt P,
    5. Ploner M
    (2012) γ Oscillations are involved in the sensorimotor transformation of pain. J Neurophysiol 108:1025–1031. doi:10.1152/jn.00186.2012 pmid:22623490
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Siegle JH,
    2. Pritchett DL,
    3. Moore CI
    (2014) Gamma-range synchronization of fast-spiking interneurons can enhance detection of tactile stimuli. Nat Neurosci 17:1371–1379. doi:10.1038/nn.3797 pmid:25151266
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Tan LL,
    2. Oswald MJ,
    3. Heinl C,
    4. Retana Romero OA,
    5. Kaushalya SK,
    6. Monyer H,
    7. Kuner R
    (2019) Gamma oscillations in somatosensory cortex recruit prefrontal and descending serotonergic pathways in aversion and nociception. Nat Commun 10:983. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08873-z pmid:30816113
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Tracey I,
    2. Woolf CJ,
    3. Andrews NA
    (2019) Composite pain biomarker signatures for objective assessment and effective treatment. Neuron 101:783–800. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.02.019 pmid:30844399
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Vierck CJ,
    2. Whitsel BL,
    3. Favorov OV,
    4. Brown AW,
    5. Tommerdahl M
    (2013) Role of primary somatosensory cortex in the coding of pain. Pain 154:334–344. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2012.10.021 pmid:23245864
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Li D,
    3. Li X,
    4. Liu F-Y,
    5. Xing G-G,
    6. Cai J,
    7. Wan Y
    (2011) Phase-amplitude coupling between θ and γ oscillations during nociception in rat electroencephalography. Neurosci Lett 499:84–87. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2011.05.037 pmid:21640788
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Wang J,
    3. Xing G-G,
    4. Li X,
    5. Wan Y
    (2016) Enhanced Gamma Oscillatory Activity in Rats with Chronic Inflammatory Pain. Front Neurosci 10:489. doi:10.3389/fnins.2016.00489 pmid:27847461
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Xu H,
    2. Jeong H-Y,
    3. Tremblay R,
    4. Rudy B
    (2013) Neocortical somatostatin-expressing GABAergic interneurons disinhibit the thalamorecipient layer 4. Neuron 77:155–167. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.11.004 pmid:23312523
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Yue LP,
    2. Iannetti GD,
    3. Hu L
    (2020) The neural origin of nociceptive-induced gamma-band oscillations. J Neurosci 40:3478–3490. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0255-20.2020 pmid:32241836
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Zhang ZG,
    2. Hu L,
    3. Hung YS,
    4. Mouraux A,
    5. Iannetti GD
    (2012) Gamma-band oscillations in the primary somatosensory cortex–a direct and obligatory correlate of subjective pain intensity. J Neurosci 32:7429–7438. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5877-11.2012 pmid:22649223
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Zhou R,
    2. Wang J,
    3. Qi W,
    4. Liu F-Y,
    5. Yi M,
    6. Guo H,
    7. Wan Y
    (2018) Elevated resting state gamma oscillatory activities in electroencephalogram of patients with post-herpetic neuralgia. Front Neurosci 12:750. doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00750 pmid:30405337
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 40 (50)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 40, Issue 50
9 Dec 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Intracortical Localization of a Promising Pain Biomarker
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Intracortical Localization of a Promising Pain Biomarker
Christopher Joseph Black
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2020, 40 (50) 9549-9551; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1520-20.2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Intracortical Localization of a Promising Pain Biomarker
Christopher Joseph Black
Journal of Neuroscience 9 December 2020, 40 (50) 9549-9551; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1520-20.2020
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Universal Coding for Uncertainty?
  • Beyond Motor Control: Diffusion MRI Reveals Associations between the Cerebello-VTA Pathway and Socio-affective Behaviors in Humans
  • A Novel APP Knock-In Mouse Model to Study the Protective Effects of the Icelandic Mutation In Vivo
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Accessibility
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2025 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.