% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@INPROCEEDINGS{Bouss:1041679,
author = {Bouss, Peter and Stella, Alessandra and Palm, Günther and
Grün, Sonja},
title = {{S}urrogate techniques to evaluate significance of spike
patterns},
reportid = {FZJ-2025-02384},
year = {2022},
abstract = {Introduction / MotivationSurrogate spike train data is used
to generate the null hypothesis in the context of the
significance analysis of spike train correlations and
spatio-temporal spike patterns. In our work, we compare five
different surrogate techniques against the classical
technique called Uniform Dithering (UD [1]). In particular,
we discuss the use of the surrogates to generate the
null-hypothesis distribution in the statistical test of the
SPADE method (Spike PAttern Detection and Evaluation [2,3]),
which detects spatio-temporal spike patterns in parallel
spike trains. In SPADE, both spike trains and surrogate
realizations are discretized into 0-1 sequences
(binarization) before the pattern detection. We discover
that binarized surrogates have a lower spike count than the
original data, due to the change in the surrogate’s
inter-spike interval (ISI) distribution caused by the UD
algorithm. The spike count mismatch between the original
data and the surrogates is predominant in the case of high
firing rates, spiking regularity, and presence of a dead
time (minimal temporal distance between spikes typically
induced by spike sorting). We prove that spike count
reduction leads to false positive (FP) detection, motivating
us to explore alternative surrogate techniques to
UD.MethodsSurrogate Techniques (Figure 1)Uniform Dithering
(UD)[1] displaces each spike individually according to a
uniform distribution.To account for the dead-time present in
experimental data, Uniform Dithering with Dead-Time (UDD)
limits the displacement of each spike such that the
dead-times are conserved.(Joint)-ISI dithering [4] displaces
each spike individually preserving the (joint-)ISI
distribution.Window Shuffling shuffles binarized spike
trains inside of short windows. Trial Shifting consists in
shifting entire segments of a spike train according to a
uniform distribution, independently trial by trial, and
neuron by neuron [1, 5].SPADESPADE detects spike patterns at
a millisecond resolution, allowing for temporal delays
between the spikes. The spike trains are first discretized
and patterns are then mined and counted. To assess the
significance of these patterns, the same procedure is
performed on multiple realizations of surrogate spike
trains, resulting in a p-value spectrum [3]. Significant
patterns have p-values lower than the (corrected)
significance threshold.Artificial data generationIn order to
evaluate the effect of the different surrogates on SPADE, we
create artificial spike trains modeled according to the
statistics of experimental data from the pre-/motor cortex
of macaque monkeys [6], including non-stationary firing rate
profiles. The dead time and regularity of the data are
modeled by simulating Poisson processes with dead-time (PPD)
and Gamma spike trains, respectively. In particular, using a
Gamma process the coefficient of variation can be adjusted
explicitly, thus allowing for the generation of regular and
bursty processes.Figure 1. Surrogate Techniques. A) Uniform
Dithering (UD) displaces each spike according to a uniform
distribution centered on the spike. B) Uniform Dithering
with dead-time (UDD) is based on uniform dithering, but
spikes are constrained not to be closer to each other than a
dead-time C) Joint Inter-Spike Interval Dithering (JISI-D)
displaces each spike according to the J-ISI distribution of
the neuron. D) Inter-Spike Interval Dithering (ISI-D)
displaces each spike according to the ISI distribution of
the neuron. E) Trial Shifting (TR-SHIFT) shifts each trial
according to a uniform distribution. F) Window Shuffling
(WIN-SHUFF) shuffles binned spike trains within
windows.Results and DiscussionWe observe that UD surrogates
modify the ISI distribution of PPD and Gamma spike trains
(approximately) into an exponential distribution. As a
consequence, spike counts are reduced after binarization. By
applying SPADE on the artificially generated data, we
observe a high number of false positives when employing UD
(see Figure 2). Thus, we conclude that UD is not a suitable
surrogate technique for spike train data that either
contains a dead-time or is regular. The alternative
surrogate methods, instead, yield a consistently low number
of false-positive patterns; between 8 and 15 FPs in 48
analyzed datasets (except for UDD on Gamma spike trains). In
conclusion, since trial shifting is the simplest method
among the best-performing ones, we recommend it as the
method of choice.Figure 2. False-positive patterns in
artificial data. The figure shows the number of false
positives (FPs) detected per surrogate techniques
(color-coded) normalized over the 48 data sets analyzed
(y-axis), left for PPD and right for Gamma process data
analyses. Numbers at the x-axis indicate the total number of
FPs over all data sets per surrogate technique.Key
Wordsspike patterns, surrogate techniques, motor
cortexReferences[1] Louis S, Borgelt C, Grün S. Generation
and Selection of Surrogate Methods for Correlation Analysis.
In: Rotter S, Grün S, editors. Analysis of Parallel Spike
Trains. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 359–382.[2] Quaglio P,
Yegenoglu A, Torre E, Endres DM, Grün S. Detection and
evaluation of spatio-temporal spike patterns in massively
parallel spike train data with SPADE. Frontiers in
computational neuroscience. 2017;11:41.[3] Stella A, Quaglio
P, Torre E, Grün S. 3d-SPADE: Significance evaluation of
spatio-temporal patterns of various temporal extents.
Biosystems. 2019;185:104022.
doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2019.104022. [4] Gerstein GL.
Searching for significance in spatio-temporal firing
patterns. Acta Neurobiol Exp. 2004;64:203–207.[5] Pipa,
G., Wheeler, D. W., Singer, W., and Nikolie, D. (2008).
NeuroXidence: reliable and efficient analysis of an excess
or deficiency of joint-spike events. J. Comput. Neurosci.
25, 64–88. doi: 10.1007/s10827-007-0065-3[6] Brochier T,
Zehl L, Hao Y, Duret M, Sprenger J, Denker M, et al.
Massively parallel recordings in macaque motor cortex during
an instructed delayed reach-to-grasp task. Scientific Data.
2018;5:180055. doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.55.},
month = {Feb},
date = {2022-02-22},
organization = {6th HBP Student Conference on
Interdisciplinary Brain Research,
Innsbruck (Austria), 22 Feb 2022 - 25
Feb 2022},
subtyp = {After Call},
cin = {INM-6 / IAS-6},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-6-20090406 / I:(DE-Juel1)IAS-6-20130828},
pnm = {5232 - Computational Principles (POF4-523) / 5234 -
Emerging NC Architectures (POF4-523) / HBP SGA2 - Human
Brain Project Specific Grant Agreement 2 (785907) / HBP SGA3
- Human Brain Project Specific Grant Agreement 3 (945539) /
HAF - Helmholtz Analytics Framework (ZT-I-0003) / GRK 2416 -
GRK 2416: MultiSenses-MultiScales: Neue Ansätze zur
Aufklärung neuronaler multisensorischer Integration
(368482240)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5232 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5234 /
G:(EU-Grant)785907 / G:(EU-Grant)945539 /
G:(DE-HGF)ZT-I-0003 / G:(GEPRIS)368482240},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)24},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1041679},
}