Alzheimer’s disease is one of the most common forms of dementia, characterised by declining memory and thinking skills, and behavioural changes that worsen over time. It affects millions of people worldwide, mostly in older age, and yet early indicators of the disease are lacking. Most cases are only diagnosed once a person’s brain function becomes noticeably impaired, even though known biological changes underpin the disease. Detecting Alzheimer’s disease early could aid diagnosis and enable early intervention, while also improving the chances of finding treatments to halt or reverse the disease.

Currently, brain function is measured by performing cognitive tests, such as remembering a set of words, imaging the brain with MRIs or CT scans, and blood or spinal fluid tests. Many of these tests can be invasive and expensive, so researchers are exploring whether measuring oscillations in the brain’s electrical activity can be a non-invasive and chepaer way of testing brain function. Gamma oscillations are rhythmic signals, thought to be involved in attention and working memory. Animals used to study Alzheimer’s disease have shown some abnormalities in gamma oscillations, and studies of healthy humans have also observed a decline in the strength and frequency of these oscillations with age. These findings have spurred an interest in understanding the link between gamma oscillations and AD in humans.

To investigate this link, Murty et al. measured patterns of brain activity in elderly people chosen from the community using electrodes placed on their scalps (a technique called electroencephalography). These participants watched certain images previously shown to elicit gamma oscillations. Participants who were later diagnosed with early Alzheimer’s disease had weaker gamma oscillations than their cognitively healthy peers in the part of the brain that processes visual images.

These results build upon previous findings from animal research suggesting that gamma oscillations may be disrupted in early Alzheimer’s disease. The work by Murty et al. could lead the way to new ways of diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease, where early indicators are urgently needed.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a predominant cause of dementia (decline in cognitive abilities) of old age and substantially contributes to the socioeconomic burden in the geriatric population, necessitating early diagnosis. Advances in our understanding of cellular pathology of AD in rodent models and its link to gamma rhythms in brain have spurred interest to investigate diagnostic and therapeutic potential of gamma rhythms in AD and other forms of dementia (Mably and Colgin, 2018; Palop and Mucke, 2016).

Gamma rhythms are narrow-band oscillations in brain’s electrical activity with center frequency occupying ~30–80 Hz frequency range (Gray et al., 1989). These are suggested to be generated from excitatory-inhibitory interactions of pyramidal cell-interneuron networks (Buzsáki and Wang, 2012) involving parvalbumin (PV) and somatostatin (SOM) interneurons (Cardin et al., 2009; Sohal et al., 2009; Veit et al., 2017). These have been proposed to be involved in certain cognitive functions like feature binding (Gray et al., 1989), attention (Chalk et al., 2010; Fries et al., 2001; Gregoriou et al., 2009), and working memory (Pesaran et al., 2002).

Some studies have reported abnormalities in gamma linked to interneuron dysfunction in AD. For example, Verret et al., 2012 reported PV interneuron dysfunction in parietal cortex of AD patients and hAPP mice (models of AD). They found aberrant gamma activity in parietal cortex in such mice. Further, some recent studies have suggested therapeutic benefit of entraining brain oscillations in gamma range in rodent models of AD. For example, Iaccarino et al., 2016 suggested that visual stimulation using light flickering at 40 Hz entrained neural activity at 40 Hz and correlated with decrease in Aβ amyloid load in visual cortices of 5XFAD, APP/PS1 mice models of AD. Based on such reports in rodents in both visual and auditory modalities, some investigators have suggested a paradigm termed GENUS (gamma-entrainment of neural activity using sensory stimuli) and have claimed to show neuro-protective effects in rodent models of AD (Adaikkan et al., 2019; Martorell et al., 2019).

Recent studies in human EEG (Murty et al., 2020; Murty et al., 2018) and MEG (Pantazis et al., 2018) have reported existence of two gamma rhythms (slow: ~20–34 Hz and fast: ~36–66 Hz) in visual cortex, elicited by Cartesian gratings. Age-related decline in power and/or frequency of these stimulus-induced gamma rhythms has been shown in cognitively healthy subjects (Gaetz et al., 2012; Murty et al., 2020). However, abnormalities in such stimulus-induced visual narrow-band gamma rhythms in human patients of mild cognitive impairment (MCI, a preclinical stage of dementia [Albert et al., 2011; Petersen et al., 1999; Sosa et al., 2012]) or AD have not been demonstrated till date.

We addressed this question in the present double-blind case-control EEG study involving a large cohort of elderly subjects (N = 244; 106 females, all aged >49 years) recruited from urban communities in Bangalore, India. These were classified as healthy (N = 227; see Murty et al., 2020), or suffering from MCI (N = 12) or AD (N = 5) based on clinical history and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR; Hughes et al., 1982; Morris, 1993) scores. We studied narrow-band gamma rhythms induced by full-screen Cartesian gratings in all these subjects. We also examined steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEPs) at 32 Hz in a subset of these subjects (seven MCI and two AD subjects). We monitored eyes using an infrared eye tracker to rule out differences in gamma power due to potential differences in eye position or microsaccade rate (Yuval-Greenberg et al., 2008).

We presented achromatic full-screen static sinusoidal grating stimuli that varied in spatial frequency (1, 2, and 4 cpd) and orientation (0°, 45°, 90°, and 135°; Figure 1A) to a large cohort of elderly subjects (227 healthy, 12 MCI, and 5 AD subjects; see 'Materials and methods' for details of subject selection and classification). We first examined whether gamma power depended on orientation and spatial frequency. We have previously shown that gamma oscillations in EEG recorded from healthy young subjects have low orientation selectivity (Murty et al., 2018). Consistent with this, we found that stimulus-induced change in fast gamma power did not vary significantly across different orientations (Figure 1—figure supplement 1; two-way ANOVA with spatial frequency and orientation as factors; F(3,2723) = 0.87, p=0.46) in healthy subjects, with very low orientation selectivity (mean ± SEM: 0.02 ± 0.002; see 'Materials and methods' for details). Slow gamma varied with orientation (F(3,2723) = 6.4, p=0.0003); however, orientation selectivity calculated across the four orientations was small (mean ± SEM: 0.03 ± 0.002; see Figure 1—figure supplement 1 for details). We therefore averaged all data across the four orientations.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

As reported previously, gamma power varied across spatial frequencies as well (same two-way ANOVA as above; slow/fast gamma: F(2,2723) = 31.1/50.7, p=4.6×10⁻¹⁴/2.4×10⁻²²). In particular, we found that the difference in gamma between cases and controls was more prominent at spatial frequencies of 2 and 4 cpd, so we used the data for these two spatial frequencies for main analysis. The 1 cpd condition, as well as the power averaged across all three spatial frequencies, gave similar, albeit slightly weaker, results (as shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 3).

Because the sample sizes were severely unbalanced between cases and controls, for each case subject, we selected controls who were age- (±1 year) and gender-matched and averaged their spectral data. All results shown here are based on pairwise comparison between cases and their averaged controls. Non-pairwise comparison (e.g., between 12 MCI and their 74 age- and gender-matched controls) yielded similar results.

Change in gamma power, but not alpha suppression, was reduced in case group compared to control group

First, we examined how the two gamma rhythms differed in MCI subjects as compared to their healthy age- and gender-matched controls. We averaged spectral data for all analyzable bipolar electrodes (as described in Murty et al., 2020) from nine occipital and parieto-occipital pairs (marked in black enclosures in Figure 2D; see EEG data analysis subsection in 'Materials and methods') for each subject. We compared the change in power spectral densities (PSDs) for each MCI with the mean change in power of their corresponding age- and gender-matched controls. Figure 2A shows the median stimulus-induced change in PSDs for 12 MCIs (yellow) and their controls (dark orange; light shaded regions show ± SD of median after bootstrapping for 10,000 iterations). While both slow and fast gamma ‘bumps’ were conspicuously visible for MCI as well as control groups, power in both slow gamma (20–34 Hz) and fast gamma (36–66 Hz) ranges (but not alpha, 8–12 Hz range) was significantly lower in the MCI group compared to the control group (Kruskal-Wallis [K-W] test, significance as shown in Figure 2A). This could also be seen in the median time-frequency change in power spectrograms (baseline: −500–0 ms of stimulus onset) for cases and controls in Figure 2B. Change in band-limited power was significantly less for both gamma bands in the MCI group compared to the control group (Figure 2C; slow gamma: χ²(23) = 4.09, p=0.043; fast gamma: K-W test, χ²(23) = 5.61, p=0.018). However, alpha power was not significantly different (χ²(23) = 0.33, p=0.56). Results were similar when we combined both gamma bands to a single band (20–66 Hz; χ²(23) = 5.08, p=0.024) or used the ‘traditional’ gamma band (30–80 Hz; χ²(23) = 5.34, p=0.021). Figure 2—figure supplement 1 shows the time-frequency change in power spectra of individual MCI subjects and the mean of their controls, sorted by increasing gamma power in the MCI subjects. Although there was substantial variability across subjects (also observed in Figure 2C), only 3/12 MCIs showed higher slow gamma power and only 2/12 MCIs showed higher fast gamma than controls.

Figure 2 with 4 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

We note that we have used very stringent conditions for computation of gamma power, similar to our previous work (Murty et al., 2020; Murty et al., 2018). For example, for all subjects, we used the same set of electrodes over which gamma was computed, as well as same time and frequency ranges. Further, we computed the total power within a band by simply summing the absolute power values within the band separately in baseline and stimulus periods and then taking a ratio. This estimate has larger contribution from lower frequencies in the band because of the power-law distribution of PSDs in baseline/stimulus periods. Consequently, if the traces are overlapping at lower frequencies within the band and diverge at higher frequencies, which was the case in the slow gamma range, the total change in power in the band may not be significantly different. Therefore, these results could be further improved by customizing the low frequency limit of the gamma band for each subject, as well as choosing only electrodes that show stronger gamma. For example, taking slow and fast gamma ranges as 26–34 Hz and 44–56 Hz improved the p-values (slow gamma: χ²(23) = 7.69, p=0.005; fast gamma: χ²(23) = 8.34, p=0.004). Although we have refrained from such customization here because we wanted to study the efficacy of a simple and subject-independent computational procedure, such data-driven subject specific optimization holds promise for improving the efficacy of a gamma-based biomarker.

Figure 2D shows the median scalp maps (see EEG data analysis subsection in 'Materials and methods') of change in band-limited power across 112 bipolar electrode pairs (shown as discs) for alpha, slow, and fast gamma bands. Stimulus-induced change in power across all three bands was most prominent in the nine electrode pairs as above. However, this change in power was less in the MCI group compared to the control group in slow and fast gamma bands (but not alpha band) as noted in Figure 2C.

For two MCI subjects (M1 and M4 as shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1), slow gamma power was less than 0 dB. This could be because visual stimuli typically suppress power at low frequencies (<30 Hz), and if the visual stimulus does not induce sufficiently strong slow-gamma rhythm, there is an overall reduction in power between 20 and 35 Hz. However, our results remained consistent even when these two MCI subjects were removed from analysis (χ²(19) = 4.81, p=0.028, for slow gamma between 26 and 34 Hz). Similarly, our results did not change when we removed one MCI subject (subject M5) who had negative fast gamma power (χ²(21) = 4.56, p=0.032).

Our study had many control subjects for each case subject (range 4–19). To rule out the possibility that our results were influenced by this imbalance, we first ordered the control subjects based on the difference in experiment date from the case subject and then chose only the first N control subjects. We tried different values of N and found that our results remained consistent in all cases, with less slow and fast gamma power in cases vs controls. For example, Figure 2—figure supplement 2 shows the results for N = 1 (a single control for each case).

Although the error bars shown in Figure 2C appear smaller for controls than cases, that is only because each data point for the control group is already an average across many subjects. When a single control subject was used per case (Figure 2—figure supplement 2), the error bars were comparable (standard error of the medians: 0.33, 0.20, and 0.34 for controls vs 0.28, 0.08, and 0.36 for cases, for slow gamma, fast gamma, and alpha, respectively). Similarly, if we pooled all the control subjects in one group without averaging (N = 74 controls vs 12 MCI subjects), the standard deviations of slow gamma, fast gamma, and alpha power were 0.94, 0.72, and 0.67 for controls and 0.79, 0.36, and 1.00 for cases. Therefore, the variability in power was comparable in the two groups.

Figure 2—figure supplement 3 shows the results for individual spatial frequencies as well as after pooling all three spatial frequencies. MCI subjects had less slow and fast gamma than controls at all spatial frequencies, although the effect was stronger at spatial frequencies of 2 and 4 cpd.

We also tested whether the event-related potentials (ERPs) varied across MCIs and healthy controls. Consistent with literature, we noticed three prominent peaks in the ERPs for these subjects: P1, N1, and P2 (Figure 2—figure supplement 4). The ERPs were not different between MCIs and controls (Figure 2—figure supplement 4, panel A). Specifically, we did not find any significant difference between P1/N1/P2 peak amplitude (Figure 2—figure supplement 4, panel B). These analyses indicate that the differences that we observed for MCIs and controls were limited only to slow and fast gamma power.

Figure 3 shows the same results for the five AD subjects in our cohort. We interpret these results with caution, since the number of subjects is small (although the study would have benefitted from a larger sample size for both MCI and AD categories, it was not possible to increase the sample size due to the COVID-19 pandemic). Nonetheless, we observed a strong reduction in the slow and fast gamma bands (Figure 3A and B), which was significant for both slow gamma (χ²(9) = 4.81 p=0.028) and fast gamma (χ²(9) = 3.94, p=0.047), but not alpha (χ²(9) = 0.01, p=0.92). Data from individual AD subjects and their controls are shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1. All five AD subjects had less slow gamma power, and only one AD subject (A5) had more fast gamma power relative to the controls. Further, similar to MCI subjects, AD subjects had less slow and fast gamma than controls at all spatial frequencies, although the effect was stronger at spatial frequencies of 2 and 4 cpd (Figure 3—figure supplement 2).

Figure 3 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Because four out of five AD subjects had only mild AD (CDR = 1), we also tested the results after combining the MCI and AD data sets (Figure 3—figure supplement 3). While slow gamma (χ²(33) = 9.51, p=0.002) and fast gamma (χ²(33) = 8.88, p=0.003) power were strongly reduced in cases vs controls, there was no difference in alpha power (χ²(33) = 0.25, p=0.61) or frequencies higher than ~65 Hz.

We further tested the dependence of power in gamma/alpha bands on CDR score using a linear regression model (see Regression analysis section in 'Materials and methods') while accounting for age and gender. In the matched condition in which data from all the age- and gender-matched control subjects for each case were averaged (yielding 17 cases and 17 controls), the coefficient for CDR was significantly negative for both gamma bands (β_CDR = –0.57/–0.25, p=0.0017/0.0063 for slow/fast gamma). Results were similar for the unmatched condition, in which all the controls were considered separately (112 healthy, 12 MCI, and 6 AD subjects), albeit the CDR slope (β_CDR) was significantly negative only for slow gamma (β_CDR = –0.62/–0.29, p=0.0071/0.0702 for slow/fast gamma). On the other hand, similar to the results in previous analyses, alpha power did not depend on CDR (β_CDR = –0.30/–0.30, p=0.14/0.21 for matched/unmatched conditions).

We have previously shown that gamma power decreases with age in healthy elderly, and females have more gamma than males (Murty et al., 2020). Consistent with these results, we found that coefficient for age was significantly negative (β_AGE = –0.018/–0.0094, p=0.014/0.06 for slow/fast gamma), while coefficient for gender was significantly positive (β_GENDER = 0.33/0.35, p=0.0070/3.15 × 10⁻⁵ for slow/fast gamma) when the regression analysis was performed on the full set of healthy subjects (N = 227). However, when the regression analysis was performed with cases and controls as described above, the coefficients were not significant (matched: β_AGE = 0.0042/4.13 × 10⁻⁵, p=0.73/0.99 and β_GENDER = –0.036/0.11, p=0.87/0.36 for slow/fast gamma; unmatched: β_AGE = –0.0071/–0.0009, p=0.51/0.91 and β_GENDER = 0.17/0.19, p=0.30/0.10 for slow/fast gamma). This also suggests that CDR is a stronger predictor of gamma power than age or gender.

These results suggest that the alternate hypothesis (gamma power in controls was greater than cases) was more likely than the null hypothesis (controls and cases had comparable gamma power). We quantified this by estimating the Bayes factor (BF), which is the ratio of the marginal likelihood of the alternate hypothesis and the null hypotheses, given the data that we observed (see 'Materials and methods for details). For the MCI group (N = 12), BF computed using single-tailed paired t-test was ~1.89 for both slow and fast gamma. However, as before, choosing a more ‘sensitive’ range for slow gamma (26–34 Hz) and fast gamma (44–56 Hz) improved the BF to 3.34 and 4.60, respectively, suggesting substantial evidence for the alternate hypothesis over the null hypothesis. For the AD group (N = 5), BF was 2.85 for slow gamma and 1.83 for fast gamma, suggesting weak evidence, which did not improve substantially when more sensitive ranges were used. However, when both MCI and AD groups were combined, BF increased to 13.70 for slow gamma (26–34 Hz) and 8.60 for fast gamma (44–56 Hz), further strengthening the evidence in favor of alternate hypothesis. On the other hand, evidence for alpha band power was in favor of the null hypothesis (BF was 0.088 when only MCIs were considered, 0.29 for ADs, and 0.077 when both MCI and AD subjects were considered).

Difference in gamma power was not due to differences in eye position or movement

Previous studies have correlated increases in gamma power with occurrence of small involuntary eye movements called microsaccades (Yuval-Greenberg et al., 2008). These have been described in previous literature using plots called ‘main sequence,’ which show peak velocity on ordinate and maximum velocity on abscissa on a log-log scale. These plots reveal the ballistic nature of microsaccades, that is, the initial velocity and maximum displacement of the eye in the visual field are correlated during microsaccadic movements (Engbert, 2006). We compared eye data between MCI/AD subjects and their respective controls and found comparable eye positions and microsaccade profiles (Figure 4A), similar main sequence (Figure 4B), and similar pupillary reactivity (Figure 4C) to stimulus presentation (measured as coefficient of variation of pupil diameter across time; see Murty et al., 2020). Further, the trends described in Figures 2 and 3 did not change qualitatively when we reanalyzed the data after removing stimulus repeats containing microsaccades (see 'Materials and methods') from analysis (Figure 4—figure supplement 1), although these did not reach significance due to lesser number of trials (~45% of original analysis) and fewer subjects compared to the original analysis (see figure legend for details). Similarly, the trends held true when we reanalyzed only those repeats that had at least one microsaccade (Figure 4—figure supplement 2). These results indicate that the trends described in Figure 2 are independent of the presence or absence of microsaccades.

Figure 4 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Difference in gamma power was not due to differences in baseline power

We also tested if the trends described in Figures 2 and 3 were seen for absolute band-limited power in the baseline condition. The cases (MCIs or ADs) and their respective controls had comparable PSDs (Figure 5) and slopes of PSDs (Figure 5—figure supplement 1) in the baseline condition. Further, baseline power in alpha, slow gamma, and fast gamma frequency ranges did not differ significantly between cases and controls (K-W test; for MCIs: χ²(23) = 0.48/0/0, p=0.49/0.95/1 for alpha/slow/fast gamma, respectively; for AD: χ²(9) = 0.27/0.53/0.27, p=0.60/0.46/0.60 for alpha/slow/fast gamma, respectively). Thus, we concluded that the trends described in Figures 2 and 3 were specific to stimulus-induced change in slow/fast gamma power and did not depend on baseline absolute power or slopes of PSDs.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

SSVEP power at 32 Hz was comparable in case and control groups

We next tested whether power of SSVEPs in gamma range also decreased in the MCI group as compared to the control group. We tested for SSVEPs at 32 Hz by presenting full-screen gratings that phase-reversed at 16 Hz (as described in Figure 1B). Ten of the 12 MCIs participated in this study, out of which data of only seven could be analyzed (data from three MCIs were discarded due to noise, see 'Materials and methods' for details). Figure 6A and B show median change in power spectral density plots (in 250–750 ms window of stimulus onset) and change in power time-frequency spectrograms (from a baseline period of −500–0 ms of stimulus onset) for these seven MCIs and their respective age- and gender-matched controls (as done for analyses in Figure 2A and B). Figure 6C and D show bar plots and scalp maps for 112 bipolar electrodes for change in SSVEP power at 32 Hz (during 250–750 ms of stimulus onset from a baseline of −500–0 ms, same as in Figure 2C and D) for control and MCI groups, respectively. We did not observe any reduction in SSVEP power at 32 Hz in the MCI group as compared to the control group (K-W Test, significance at each frequency of the change in power spectra is shown in Figure 6A; significance at 32 Hz: χ²(13) = 0.04, p=0.85). For comparison, we reanalyzed data for slow and fast gamma power for the Gamma experiment (as in Figure 2) with the same set of seven MCI subjects and their respective controls. MCIs had less slow and fast gamma power compared to controls as seen in Figure 6—figure supplement 1 (same format as Figures 2 and 3), although these trends did not reach significance due to small sample size (K-W test, χ²(13) = 0.49/2.56, p=0.48/0.11 for slow/fast gamma, respectively). As before, choosing the more sensitive slow-gamma frequency range between 26 and 34 Hz yielded a significant difference between the two groups (K-W test, χ²(13) = 3.93, p=0.047). Alpha followed a similar insignificant trend as in Figure 2 (χ²(13) = 0, p=0.949). Further, adding the two AD subjects yielded significant differences in both slow and fast gamma power (K-W test, slow gamma between 26 and 34 Hz in Gamma experiment: χ²(17) = 4.31, p=0.038; fast gamma: χ²(17) = 4.69, p=0.03), but not for SSVEP power (for change in power at 32 Hz in SSVEP experiment: χ²(17) = 0.05, p=0.82).

Figure 6 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Trends for SSVEPs were not different when we performed time-frequency analysis on trial-averaged time-amplitude waveforms for each subject (Figure 6—figure supplement 2A–C), instead for averaging time-frequency spectra of individual repeats for each subject, as done above for Gamma and SSVEP analyses. Further, stimulus onset-related responses (0–250 ms) were comparable between MCIs and their respective controls (Figure 6—figure supplement 2D). The RMS amplitude, peak amplitude, and time of the peak of the stimulus-onset response also did not differ among MCI subjects and their respective controls (Figure 6—figure supplement 2D–E). To conclude, change in SSVEP power at 32 Hz for cases was comparable to that of their controls, like alpha but unlike slow and fast gamma oscillations.

Stimulus-induced change in power of both narrow-band slow and fast gamma oscillations reduced in elderly subjects with MCI and AD compared to their age- and gender-matched healthy controls. We removed or ruled out possible biases due to peripheral ocular factors or overall baseline noise of the PSDs to further strengthen the results. In contrast to gamma, we did not find any significant reduction in stimulus-induced alpha suppression, ERP, or SSVEP at 32 Hz in cases.

Previous studies have suggested abnormalities in spontaneous and evoked activity in gamma band in various disorders. Some studies have also explored abnormalities in other oscillatory bands such as alpha as well as functional connectivity across brain regions in such disorders. Examples include autism (An et al., 2018; Uhlhaas and Singer, 2007), schizophrenia (Hirano et al., 2015; Uhlhaas and Singer, 2010), and AD and other dementias (Herrmann and Demiralp, 2005; Jeong, 2004; Pievani et al., 2011). However, this is the first study to our knowledge that found abnormalities in visual narrow-band gamma oscillations elicited by Cartesian gratings in human EEG in MCI and AD.

Previously, van Deursen et al., 2008 examined neural activity in gamma frequency range and found that gamma activity increased in subjects with MCI/AD, as opposed to their initially proposed hypothesis. Our findings are different from theirs, probably due to the differences in task settings: we had tested for visual gamma rhythms induced by gratings, whereas they had tested for resting-state gamma as well as gamma activity for multiple-colored objects randomly moving on a computer screen (taken from screensavers). Whether our results hold true for drifting (moving) and chromatic gratings remains to be tested in future studies.

All spectral analyses were performed using Chronux toolbox (version 2.10), available at http://chronux.org. Relevant data and codes are available at the following GitHub repository: https://github.com/supratimray/TLSAEEGProjectPrograms (copy archived at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:rev:5860e435fea06a49599ac81907bd63099e46581b).

1. 1. Adaikkan C
   2. Middleton SJ
   3. Marco A
   4. Pao PC
   5. Mathys H
   6. Kim DN
   7. Gao F
   8. Young JZ
   9. Suk HJ
   10. Boyden ES
   11. McHugh TJ
   12. Tsai LH

   (2019) Gamma Entrainment Binds Higher-Order Brain Regions and Offers Neuroprotection

   Neuron 102:929–943.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.04.011

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Albert MS
   2. DeKosky ST
   3. Dickson D
   4. Dubois B
   5. Feldman HH
   6. Fox NC
   7. Gamst A
   8. Holtzman DM
   9. Jagust WJ
   10. Petersen RC
   11. Snyder PJ
   12. Carrillo MC
   13. Thies B
   14. Phelps CH

   (2011) The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

   Alzheimer's & Dementia 7:270–279.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.008

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. An KM
   2. Ikeda T
   3. Yoshimura Y
   4. Hasegawa C
   5. Saito DN
   6. Kumazaki H
   7. Hirosawa T
   8. Minabe Y
   9. Kikuchi M

   (2018) Altered Gamma Oscillations during Motor Control in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

   The Journal of Neuroscience 38:7878–7886.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1229-18.2018

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Brodaty H
   2. Pond D
   3. Kemp NM
   4. Luscombe G
   5. Harding L
   6. Berman K
   7. Huppert FA

   (2002) The GPCOG: a new screening test for dementia designed for general practice

   Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 50:530–534.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50122.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Buzsáki G
   2. Logothetis N
   3. Singer W

   (2013) Scaling brain size, keeping timing: evolutionary preservation of brain rhythms

   Neuron 80:751–764.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.10.002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Buzsáki G
   2. Wang XJ

   (2012) Mechanisms of gamma oscillations

   Annual Review of Neuroscience 35:203–225.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150444

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Cardin JA
   2. Carlén M
   3. Meletis K
   4. Knoblich U
   5. Zhang F
   6. Deisseroth K
   7. Tsai LH
   8. Moore CI

   (2009) Driving fast-spiking cells induces gamma rhythm and controls sensory responses

   Nature 459:663–667.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Chalk M
   2. Herrero JL
   3. Gieselmann MA
   4. Delicato LS
   5. Gotthardt S
   6. Thiele A

   (2010) Attention reduces stimulus-driven gamma frequency oscillations and spike field coherence in V1

   Neuron 66:114–125.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.013

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Cousijn H
   2. Haegens S
   3. Wallis G
   4. Near J
   5. Stokes MG
   6. Harrison PJ
   7. Nobre AC

   (2014) Resting GABA and glutamate concentrations do not predict visual gamma frequency or amplitude

   PNAS 111:9301–9306.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321072111

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cummings JL
    2. Mega M
    3. Gray K
    4. Rosenberg-Thompson S
    5. Carusi DA
    6. Gornbein J

    (1994) The neuropsychiatric inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia

    Neurology 44:2308.

    https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.44.12.2308

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Dalkey N
    2. Helmer O

    (1963) An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts

    Management Science 9:458–467.

    https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Delorme A
    2. Makeig S

    (2004) EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis

    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 134:9–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dickerson BC
    2. Bakkour A
    3. Salat DH
    4. Feczko E
    5. Pacheco J
    6. Greve DN
    7. Grodstein F
    8. Wright CI
    9. Blacker D
    10. Rosas HD
    11. Sperling RA
    12. Atri A
    13. Growdon JH
    14. Hyman BT
    15. Morris JC
    16. Fischl B
    17. Buckner RL

    (2009) The cortical signature of Alzheimer's disease: regionally specific cortical thinning relates to symptom severity in very mild to mild AD dementia and is detectable in asymptomatic amyloid-positive individuals

    Cerebral Cortex 19:497–510.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Engbert R

    (2006) Microsaccades: A microcosm for research on oculomotor control, attention, and visual perception

    Progress in brain research 154:177–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)54009-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Fries P
    2. Reynolds JH
    3. Rorie AE
    4. Desimone R

    (2001) Modulation of oscillatory neuronal synchronization by selective visual attention

    Science 291:1560–1563.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1055465

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Gaetz W
    2. Roberts TP
    3. Singh KD
    4. Muthukumaraswamy SD

    (2012) Functional and structural correlates of the aging brain: relating visual cortex (V1) gamma band responses to age-related structural change

    Human Brain Mapping 33:2035–2046.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21339

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Ganguli M
    2. Ratcliff G
    3. Chandra V
    4. Sharma S
    5. Gilby J
    6. Pandav R
    7. Belle S
    8. Ryan C
    9. Baker C
    10. Seaberg E
    11. Dekosky S

    (1995) A hindi version of the MMSE: The development of a cognitive screening instrument for a largely illiterate rural elderly population in india

    International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 10:367–377.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.930100505

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Graham B
    2. Regehr G
    3. Wright JG

    (2003) Delphi as a method to establish consensus for diagnostic criteria

    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 56:1150–1156.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00211-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Gray CM
    2. König P
    3. Engel AK
    4. Singer W

    (1989) Oscillatory responses in cat visual cortex exhibit inter-columnar synchronization which reflects global stimulus properties

    Nature 338:334–337.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/338334a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Gregoriou GG
    2. Gotts SJ
    3. Zhou H
    4. Desimone R

    (2009) High-frequency, long-range coupling between prefrontal and visual cortex during attention

    Science 324:1207–1210.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1171402

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hamilton M

    (1960) A rating scale for depression

    Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 23:56–62.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Herrmann CS
    2. Demiralp T

    (2005) Human EEG gamma oscillations in neuropsychiatric disorders

    Clinical Neurophysiology 116:2719–2733.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2005.07.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hirano Y
    2. Oribe N
    3. Kanba S
    4. Onitsuka T
    5. Nestor PG
    6. Spencer KM

    (2015) Spontaneous Gamma Activity in Schizophrenia

    JAMA Psychiatry 72:813–821.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2642

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hughes CP
    2. Berg L
    3. Danziger WL
    4. Coben LA
    5. Martin RL

    (1982) A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia

    British Journal of Psychiatry 140:566–572.

    https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.140.6.566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Iaccarino HF
    2. Singer AC
    3. Martorell AJ
    4. Rudenko A
    5. Gao F
    6. Gillingham TZ
    7. Mathys H
    8. Seo J
    9. Kritskiy O
    10. Abdurrob F
    11. Adaikkan C
    12. Canter RG
    13. Rueda R
    14. Brown EN
    15. Boyden ES
    16. Tsai LH

    (2016) Gamma frequency entrainment attenuates amyloid load and modifies microglia

    Nature 540:230–235.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20587

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Jarosz AF
    2. Wiley J

    (2014) What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting bayes factors

    The Journal of Problem Solving 7:2.

    https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1167

    • Google Scholar
27. Book

    1. Jeffreys H

    (1998)

    The Theory of Probability

    Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Jeong J

    (2004) EEG dynamics in patients with Alzheimer's disease

    Clinical Neurophysiology 115:1490–1505.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2004.01.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Kalaria RN
    2. Maestre GE
    3. Arizaga R
    4. Friedland RP
    5. Galasko D
    6. Hall K
    7. Luchsinger JA
    8. Ogunniyi A
    9. Perry EK
    10. Potocnik F
    11. Prince M
    12. Stewart R
    13. Wimo A
    14. Zhang ZX
    15. Antuono P
    16. World Federation of Neurology Dementia Research Group

    (2008) Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia in developing countries: prevalence, management, and risk factors

    The Lancet Neurology 7:812–826.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70169-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Keysers C
    2. Gazzola V
    3. Wagenmakers EJ

    (2020) Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence

    Nature Neuroscience 23:788–799.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0660-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Kimchi EY
    2. Hshieh TT
    3. Guo R
    4. Wong B
    5. O'Connor M
    6. Marcantonio ER
    7. Metzger ED
    8. Strauss J
    9. Arnold SE
    10. Inouye SK
    11. Fong TG

    (2017) Consensus Approaches to Identify Incident Dementia in Cohort Studies: Systematic Review and Approach in the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery Study

    Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 18:1010–1018.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.07.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. Software

    1. Krekelberg B

    (2021) Bayes Factor

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/klabhub/bayesFactor
33. 1. Lemaitre H
    2. Goldman AL
    3. Sambataro F
    4. Verchinski BA
    5. Meyer-Lindenberg A
    6. Weinberger DR
    7. Mattay VS

    (2012) Normal age-related brain morphometric changes: nonuniformity across cortical thickness, surface area and gray matter volume?

    Neurobiology of Aging 33:617.e1-9.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2010.07.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Mably AJ
    2. Colgin LL

    (2018) Gamma oscillations in cognitive disorders

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 52:182–187.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2018.07.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Martorell AJ
    2. Paulson AL
    3. Suk HJ
    4. Abdurrob F
    5. Drummond GT
    6. Guan W
    7. Young JZ
    8. Kim DN
    9. Kritskiy O
    10. Barker SJ
    11. Mangena V
    12. Prince SM
    13. Brown EN
    14. Chung K
    15. Boyden ES
    16. Singer AC
    17. Tsai LH

    (2019) Multi-sensory Gamma Stimulation Ameliorates Alzheimer's-Associated Pathology and Improves Cognition

    Cell 177:256–271.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Mathuranath PS
    2. George A
    3. Cherian PJ
    4. Mathew R
    5. Sarma PS

    (2005) Instrumental activities of daily living scale for dementia screening in elderly people

    International Psychogeriatrics 17:461–474.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610205001547

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Mathuranath PS
    2. George A
    3. Ranjith N
    4. Justus S
    5. Kumar MS
    6. Menon R
    7. Sarma PS
    8. Verghese J

    (2012) Incidence of Alzheimer's disease in India: a 10 years follow-up study

    Neurology India 60:625–630.

    https://doi.org/10.4103/0028-3886.105198

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. McKhann GM
    2. Knopman DS
    3. Chertkow H
    4. Hyman BT
    5. Jack CR
    6. Kawas CH
    7. Klunk WE
    8. Koroshetz WJ
    9. Manly JJ
    10. Mayeux R
    11. Mohs RC
    12. Morris JC
    13. Rossor MN
    14. Scheltens P
    15. Carrillo MC
    16. Thies B
    17. Weintraub S
    18. Phelps CH

    (2011) The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

    Alzheimer's & Dementia 7:263–269.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. Book

    1. Mitra P
    2. Bokil H

    (2008)

    Observed brain dynamics

    Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Morris JC

    (1993) The clinical dementia rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules

    Neurology 43:2412.

    https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Murty D
    2. Shirhatti V
    3. Ravishankar P
    4. Ray S

    (2018) Large Visual Stimuli Induce Two Distinct Gamma Oscillations in Primate Visual Cortex

    The Journal of Neuroscience 38:2730–2744.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2270-17.2017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Murty D
    2. Manikandan K
    3. Kumar WS
    4. Ramesh RG
    5. Purokayastha S
    6. Javali M
    7. Rao NP
    8. Ray S

    (2020) Gamma oscillations weaken with age in healthy elderly in human EEG

    NeuroImage 215:116826.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116826

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. Software

    1. Murty DVPS

    (2021) TLSAEEGProjectPrograms, version swh:1:rev:5860e435fea06a49599ac81907bd63099e46581b

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:e748da2dbcf869bd99f0ff7ac89c63ea0bd4fb3a;origin=https://github.com/supratimray/TLSAEEGProjectPrograms;visit=swh:1:snp:abbc410f1de40f038a619172217484563faf2294;anchor=swh:1:rev:5860e435fea06a49599ac81907bd63099e46581b
44. 1. Muthukumaraswamy SD
    2. Singh KD
    3. Swettenham JB
    4. Jones DK

    (2010) Visual gamma oscillations and evoked responses: variability, repeatability and structural MRI correlates

    NeuroImage 49:3349–3357.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Muthukumaraswamy SD
    2. Singh KD

    (2013) Visual gamma oscillations: the effects of stimulus type, visual field coverage and stimulus motion on MEG and EEG recordings

    NeuroImage 69:223–230.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.12.038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Orekhova EV
    2. Butorina AV
    3. Sysoeva OV
    4. Prokofyev AO
    5. Nikolaeva AY
    6. Stroganova TA

    (2015) Frequency of gamma oscillations in humans is modulated by velocity of visual motion

    Journal of Neurophysiology 114:244–255.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00232.2015

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Palop JJ
    2. Mucke L

    (2016) Network abnormalities and interneuron dysfunction in Alzheimer disease

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17:777–792.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.141

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Pantazis D
    2. Fang M
    3. Qin S
    4. Mohsenzadeh Y
    5. Li Q
    6. Cichy RM

    (2018) Decoding the orientation of contrast edges from MEG evoked and induced responses

    NeuroImage 180:267–279.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.022

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Pesaran B
    2. Pezaris JS
    3. Sahani M
    4. Mitra PP
    5. Andersen RA

    (2002) Temporal structure in neuronal activity during working memory in macaque parietal cortex

    Nature Neuroscience 5:805–811.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn890

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Petersen RC
    2. Smith GE
    3. Waring SC
    4. Ivnik RJ
    5. Tangalos EG
    6. Kokmen E

    (1999) Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome

    Archives of neurology 56:303–308.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.56.3.303

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Pievani M
    2. de Haan W
    3. Wu T
    4. Seeley WW
    5. Frisoni GB

    (2011) Functional network disruption in the degenerative dementias

    The Lancet Neurology 10:829–843.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70158-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Robson SE
    2. Muthukumarawswamy SD
    3. John Evans C
    4. Shaw A
    5. Brealy J
    6. Davis B
    7. McNamara G
    8. Perry G
    9. Singh KD

    (2015) Structural and neurochemical correlates of individual differences in gamma frequency oscillations in human visual cortex

    Journal of Anatomy 227:409–417.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/joa.12339

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Rouder JN
    2. Morey RD
    3. Speckman PL
    4. Province JM

    (2012) Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs

    Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56:356–374.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Salat DH
    2. Buckner RL
    3. Snyder AZ
    4. Greve DN
    5. Desikan RS
    6. Busa E
    7. Morris JC
    8. Dale AM
    9. Fischl B

    (2004) Thinning of the cerebral cortex in aging

    Cerebral Cortex 14:721–730.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Salelkar S
    2. Ray S

    (2020) Interaction between steady-state visually evoked potentials at nearby flicker frequencies

    Scientific Reports 10:1–16.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62180-y

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Serrano-Pozo A
    2. Frosch MP
    3. Masliah E
    4. Hyman BT

    (2011) Neuropathological alterations in Alzheimer disease

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 1:a006189.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a006189

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. So M
    2. Foxe D
    3. Kumfor F
    4. Murray C
    5. Hsieh S
    6. Savage G
    7. Ahmed RM
    8. Burrell JR
    9. Hodges JR
    10. Irish M
    11. Piguet O

    (2018) Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III: Psychometric Characteristics and Relations to Functional Ability in Dementia

    Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 24:854–863.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617718000541

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Sohal VS
    2. Zhang F
    3. Yizhar O
    4. Deisseroth K

    (2009) Parvalbumin neurons and gamma rhythms enhance cortical circuit performance

    Nature 459:698–702.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07991

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Sosa AL
    2. Albanese E
    3. Stephan BC
    4. Dewey M
    5. Acosta D
    6. Ferri CP
    7. Guerra M
    8. Huang Y
    9. Jacob KS
    10. Jiménez-Velázquez IZ
    11. Rodriguez JJ
    12. Salas A
    13. Williams J
    14. Acosta I
    15. González-Viruet M
    16. Hernandez MA
    17. Shuran L
    18. Prince MJ
    19. Stewart R

    (2012) Prevalence, distribution, and impact of mild cognitive impairment in Latin America, China, and India: a 10/66 population-based study

    PLOS Medicine 9:e1001170.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001170

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Thomson H

    (2018) How flashing lights and pink noise might banish Alzheimer’s, improve memory and more

    Nature 555:20–22.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02391-6

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Uhlhaas PJ
    2. Singer W

    (2007) What do disturbances in neural synchrony tell us about autism?

    Biological Psychiatry 62:190–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.05.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Uhlhaas PJ
    2. Singer W

    (2010) Abnormal neural oscillations and synchrony in schizophrenia

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11:100–113.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2774

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. van Deursen JA
    2. Vuurman EF
    3. Verhey FR
    4. van Kranen-Mastenbroek VH
    5. Riedel WJ

    (2008) Increased EEG gamma band activity in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment

    Journal of Neural Transmission 115:1301–1311.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-008-0083-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. van Pelt S
    2. Shumskaya E
    3. Fries P

    (2018) Cortical volume and sex influence visual gamma

    NeuroImage 178:702–712.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Veit J
    2. Hakim R
    3. Jadi MP
    4. Sejnowski TJ
    5. Adesnik H

    (2017) Cortical gamma band synchronization through somatostatin interneurons

    Nature Neuroscience 20:951–959.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4562

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Verret L
    2. Mann EO
    3. Hang GB
    4. Barth AM
    5. Cobos I
    6. Ho K
    7. Devidze N
    8. Masliah E
    9. Kreitzer AC
    10. Mody I
    11. Mucke L
    12. Palop JJ

    (2012) Inhibitory interneuron deficit links altered network activity and cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer model

    Cell 149:708–721.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. von Elm E
    2. Altman DG
    3. Egger M
    4. Pocock SJ
    5. Gøtzsche PC
    6. Vandenbroucke JP

    (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

    The Lancet 370:1453–1457.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Williams JB

    (1988) A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

    Archives of General Psychiatry 45:742–747.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800320058007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Yuval-Greenberg S
    2. Tomer O
    3. Keren AS
    4. Nelken I
    5. Deouell LY

    (2008) Transient induced gamma-band response in EEG as a manifestation of miniature saccades

    Neuron 58:429–441.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Dinavahi VPS Murty

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1726-5171

2. Keerthana Manikandan

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6461-1930

3. Wupadrasta Santosh Kumar

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7097-0414

4. Ranjini Garani Ramesh

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Simran Purokayastha

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6096-1477

6. Bhargavi Nagendra

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Abhishek ML

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Aditi Balakrishnan

   Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Mahendra Javali

   MS Ramaiah Medical College & Memorial Hospital, Bengaluru, India

   Contribution

   Validation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Naren Prahalada Rao

    National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Supratim Ray

    Centre for Neuroscience, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

    For correspondence

    sray@iisc.ac.in

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1968-1382

• 3,637

  views

• 521

  downloads

• 46

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.