Timeline for Why is extracellular measurement of action potentials so different from intracellular?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 2017 at 19:32 | comment | added | elecV1 | Thank you so much, Mr Bryan Krause. I search for this answer for days! | |
| Aug 21, 2017 at 19:21 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | For long-term recordings (over weeks and months), only extracellular recordings are currently technologically feasible. | |
| Aug 21, 2017 at 19:20 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | Read about whole-cell patch clamp (though there are a couple other methods for recording intracellularly). Intracellular recordings are necessary to measure the magnitude of inputs to individual cells. Extracellular recordings can measure outputs from single or multiple cells, and/or field potentials that approximate inputs to populations of cells. It isn't fair to say one is better than the other: they are different, for different purposes. | |
| Aug 21, 2017 at 19:14 | comment | added | elecV1 | Thank you so much mr Bryan Krause for your response. Sorry for my comment but I would to understand one point.You refer that "That article is describing an amplifier system for recording extracellularly "and also "This amplifier would not be suitable for recording intracellularly."Can you help me to understand the difference when amplifier records intracellularly compared with extracellularly ?What changes in neural signals that record? Maybe the difference is the place of implant in brain?Is any of the recording methods better? Thank you in advance. | |
| Aug 21, 2017 at 18:50 | history | answered | Bryan Krause♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |