Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 28, 2026

Electrophysiological Measurements and Analysis of Nociception in Human Infants
Published on: December 20, 2011
Network analysis identifies consensus physiological measures of neurovascular coupling in humans
Jordan W Squair1,2,3,4,5, Amanda Hx Lee3,5, Zoe K Sarafis3
1Departments of Physiology and Pharmacology, Clinical Neurosciences, Cardiac Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Abstract:
Intimate communication between neural and vascular structures is required to match neuronal metabolism to blood flow, a process termed neurovascular coupling. The number of laboratories assessing neurovascular coupling in humans is increasing due to clinical interest in disease states, and basic science interest in a non-anesthetized, non-craniotomized, unrestrained, in vivo model. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding how best to characterize the neurovascular response. To address this knowledge gap, we have amassed a highly powered human neurovascular coupling dataset, and deployed a network-based approach to reveal the most powerful and consistent metrics for quantifying neurovascular coupling. Using dimensionality reduction, community-based clustering, and majority-voting of traditional metrics (e.g. peak response, time to peak) and non-traditional metrics (e.g. varying time windows, pulsatility), we have identified which of the existing metrics predominantly characterize the neurovascular coupling response, are stable within and across participants, and explain the vast majority of the variance within our dataset of over 300 trials. We then harnessed our empirical approach to generate powerful novel metrics of neurovascular coupling, termed iAmplitude, iRate, and iPulsatility, which increase sensitivity when capturing population differences. These metrics may be useful to optimally understand neurovascular coupling in health and disease.
Related Concept Videos
Protein Networks
These interactions can be represented through maps depicting protein-protein interaction networks, represented as nodes and edges. Nodes are circles that are representative of a protein,...
Network Covalent Solids
To break or to melt a covalent network solid, covalent bonds must be broken. Because covalent bonds are relatively strong, covalent network solids are typically...
Spin–Spin Coupling: Two-Bond Coupling (Geminal Coupling)
The central atom need not be NMR-active because its electrons are affected by the electron polarization of the spin-active atoms. However, spin information is transmitted less effectively than in one-bond coupling, and 2J values are usually weaker than 1J values. The energy of...
Spin–Spin Coupling: Three-Bond Coupling (Vicinal Coupling)
The extent of coupling depends on the C‑C bond length, the two H‑C‑C angles, any electron-withdrawing substituents, and the dihedral angle between the involved orbitals. The...
G-protein Coupled Receptors
Spin–Spin Coupling: One-Bond Coupling

