Human Neocortical Neurosolver (HNN), a new software tool for interpreting the cellular and network origin of human MEG/EEG data

  1. Samuel A Neymotin  Is a corresponding author
  2. Dylan S Daniels
  3. Blake Caldwell
  4. Robert A McDougal
  5. Nicholas T Carnevale
  6. Mainak Jas
  7. Christopher I Moore
  8. Michael L Hines
  9. Matti Hämäläinen
  10. Stephanie R Jones  Is a corresponding author
  1. Brown University, United States
  2. Yale University, United States
  3. Massachusetts General Hospital, United States

Abstract

Magneto- and electro-encephalography (MEG/EEG) non-invasively record human brain activity with millisecond resolution providing reliable markers of healthy and disease states. Relating these macroscopic signals to underlying cellular- and circuit-level generators is a limitation that constrains using MEG/EEG to reveal novel principles of information processing or to translate findings into new therapies for neuropathology. To address this problem, we built Human Neocortical Neurosolver (HNN, https://hnn.brown.edu) software. HNN has a graphical user interface designed to help researchers and clinicians interpret the neural origins of MEG/EEG. HNN's core is a neocortical circuit model that accounts for biophysical origins of electrical currents generating MEG/EEG. Data can be directly compared to simulated signals and parameters easily manipulated to develop/test hypotheses on a signal's origin. Tutorials teach users to simulate commonly measured signals, including event related potentials and brain rhythms. HNN's ability to associate signals across scales makes it a unique tool for translational neuroscience research.

Data availability

All source-code, model parameters, and associated data are provided in a permanent public-accessible repository on github (https://github.com/jonescompneurolab/hnn).

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Samuel A Neymotin

    Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, United States
    For correspondence
    samuel.neymotin@nki.rfmh.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3646-5195
  2. Dylan S Daniels

    Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Blake Caldwell

    Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6882-6998
  4. Robert A McDougal

    Department of Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6394-3127
  5. Nicholas T Carnevale

    Department of Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Mainak Jas

    Athinoula A Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Christopher I Moore

    Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4534-1602
  8. Michael L Hines

    Department of Neuroscience, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Matti Hämäläinen

    Athinoula A Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Stephanie R Jones

    Department of Neuroscience, Brown University, Providence, United States
    For correspondence
    Stephanie_Jones@brown.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6760-5301

Funding

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (BRAIN Award 5-R01-EB022889-02)

  • Samuel A Neymotin
  • Dylan S Daniels
  • Blake Caldwell
  • Robert A McDougal
  • Nicholas T Carnevale
  • Mainak Jas
  • Christopher I Moore
  • Michael L Hines
  • Matti Hämäläinen
  • Stephanie R Jones

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (BRAIN Award Supplement R01EB022889-02S1)

  • Samuel A Neymotin
  • Dylan S Daniels
  • Blake Caldwell
  • Robert A McDougal
  • Nicholas T Carnevale
  • Mainak Jas
  • Christopher I Moore
  • Michael L Hines
  • Matti Hämäläinen
  • Stephanie R Jones

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (5-R01DC012947-07)

  • Samuel A Neymotin

Army Research Office (W911NF-19-1-0402)

  • Samuel A Neymotin

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authorsand should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Office or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Arjen Stolk, Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Netherlands

Publication history

  1. Received: August 20, 2019
  2. Accepted: January 22, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 22, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 13, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Neymotin et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,525
    Page views
  • 598
    Downloads
  • 20
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Samuel A Neymotin
  2. Dylan S Daniels
  3. Blake Caldwell
  4. Robert A McDougal
  5. Nicholas T Carnevale
  6. Mainak Jas
  7. Christopher I Moore
  8. Michael L Hines
  9. Matti Hämäläinen
  10. Stephanie R Jones
(2020)
Human Neocortical Neurosolver (HNN), a new software tool for interpreting the cellular and network origin of human MEG/EEG data
eLife 9:e51214.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51214

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Arefeh Sherafati et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Cochlear implants are neuroprosthetic devices that can restore hearing in people with severe to profound hearing loss by electrically stimulating the auditory nerve. Because of physical limitations on the precision of this stimulation, the acoustic information delivered by a cochlear implant does not convey the same level of acoustic detail as that conveyed by normal hearing. As a result, speech understanding in listeners with cochlear implants is typically poorer and more effortful than in listeners with normal hearing. The brain networks supporting speech understanding in listeners with cochlear implants are not well understood, partly due to difficulties obtaining functional neuroimaging data in this population. In the current study, we assessed the brain regions supporting spoken word understanding in adult listeners with right unilateral cochlear implants (n=20) and matched controls (n=18) using high-density diffuse optical tomography (HD-DOT), a quiet and non-invasive imaging modality with spatial resolution comparable to that of functional MRI. We found that while listening to spoken words in quiet, listeners with cochlear implants showed greater activity in the left prefrontal cortex than listeners with normal hearing, specifically in a region engaged in a separate spatial working memory task. These results suggest that listeners with cochlear implants require greater cognitive processing during speech understanding than listeners with normal hearing, supported by compensatory recruitment of the left prefrontal cortex.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mohammad Ali Salehinejad et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Sleep strongly affects synaptic strength, making it critical for cognition, especially learning and memory formation. Whether and how sleep deprivation modulates human brain physiology and cognition is not well understood. Here we examined how overnight sleep deprivation vs overnight sufficient sleep affects (a) cortical excitability, measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation, (b) inducibility of long-term potentiation (LTP)- and long-term depression (LTD)-like plasticity via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and (c) learning, memory, and attention. The results suggest that sleep deprivation upscales cortical excitability due to enhanced glutamate-related cortical facilitation and decreases and/or reverses GABAergic cortical inhibition. Furthermore, tDCS-induced LTP-like plasticity (anodal) abolishes while the inhibitory LTD-like plasticity (cathodal) converts to excitatory LTP-like plasticity under sleep deprivation. This is associated with increased EEG theta oscillations due to sleep pressure. Finally, we show that learning and memory formation, behavioral counterparts of plasticity, and working memory and attention, which rely on cortical excitability, are impaired during sleep deprivation. Our data indicate that upscaled brain excitability and altered plasticity, due to sleep deprivation, are associated with impaired cognitive performance. Besides showing how brain physiology and cognition undergo changes (from neurophysiology to higher-order cognition) under sleep pressure, the findings have implications for variability and optimal application of noninvasive brain stimulation.