pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.16465 · v5 · pith:OKN75BU2new · submitted 2025-11-20 · ⚛️ physics.bio-ph · physics.app-ph· physics.med-ph· q-bio.NC

Mesoscale tissue properties and electric fields in brain stimulation: Bridging the macroscopic and microscopic scales using layer-specific cortical conductivity

Boshuo Wang , Torge H. Worbs , Minhaj A. Hussain , Aman S. Aberra , Axel Thielscher , Warren M. Grill , Angel V. Peterchev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 18:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.bio-ph physics.app-phphysics.med-phq-bio.NC
keywords cortical conductivityelectric field modelingbrain stimulationmesoscale tissue propertiesvolume fractionneural activationmultiscale models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Layer-specific cortical conductivity, based on cell volume fractions, improves electric field simulations for brain stimulation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that variations in tissue conductivity across cortical layers, caused by differences in cell density, affect the distribution of electric fields during brain stimulation. By using simplified models that relate conductivity to the volume fraction of extracellular space, they estimate how conductivity changes from layer 2 to layer 6. These estimates show that deeper layers are more conductive, with differences up to 50% between layers. A sympathetic reader would care because more accurate conductivity maps could lead to better predictions of where and at what strength neurons are activated in therapeutic or research applications of electrical stimulation. The work bridges microscopic tissue structure with macroscopic field calculations.

Core claim

Using simplified microscopic models, effective tissue conductivity was estimated as a function of volume fraction of extracellular space, and the conductivities of different cortical layers were interpolated based on experimental volume fraction. The effective tissue conductivities were monotonically decreasing convex functions of the cell volume fraction. With decreasing cell volume fraction, the conductivity of cortical layers increased with depth from layer 2 to 6. Although the variation of conductivity within the cortex was small when compared to the conductivity of extracellular fluid (9% to 15%), the conductivity difference was considerably larger when compared between layers, e.g., 20

What carries the argument

Effective tissue conductivity estimated from extracellular volume fraction using simplified microscopic models, which is then interpolated across cortical layers to create mesoscale distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that effective conductivity can be accurately estimated from a simplified microscopic model that depends only on extracellular volume fraction and that experimental volume-fraction values are representative for the layers being modeled.

What would settle it

Direct measurements of conductivity in specific cortical layers compared against the model's interpolated predictions, or experiments testing whether activation thresholds match model outputs better with layered conductivity than with uniform assumptions.

read the original abstract

Accurate simulations of electric fields (E-fields) in neural stimulation depend on tissue conductivity representations that link underlying microscopic tissue structure with macroscopic assumptions. Mesoscale conductivity variations can produce meaningful changes in E-fields and neural activation thresholds but remain largely absent from standard macroscopic models. Conductivity variations within the cortex are expected given the differences in cell density and volume fraction across layers. We review recent efforts modeling microscopic and mesoscopic E-fields and outline approaches that bridge micro- and macroscales to derive consistent mesoscale conductivity distributions. Using simplified microscopic models, effective tissue conductivity was estimated as a function of volume fraction of extracellular space, and the conductivities of different cortical layers were interpolated based on experimental volume fraction. The effective tissue conductivities were monotonically decreasing convex functions of the cell volume fraction. With decreasing cell volume fraction, the conductivity of cortical layers increased with depth from layer 2 to 6. Although the variation of conductivity within the cortex was small when compared to the conductivity of extracellular fluid (9% to 15%), the conductivity difference was considerably larger when compared between layers, e.g., with layer 3 and 6 being 20% and 50% more conductive than layer 2, respectively. The review and analysis provide a foundation for accurate multiscale models of E-fields and neural stimulation. Using layer-specific conductivity values within the cortex could improve the accuracy of estimations of thresholds and distributions of neural activation in E-field models of brain stimulation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reviews micro- and mesoscale E-field modeling in brain stimulation and derives layer-specific cortical conductivities by applying simplified microscopic effective-medium models that take only extracellular volume fraction as input. These conductivities are then interpolated using experimental volume-fraction data for cortical layers 2–6. The resulting effective conductivities form monotonically decreasing convex functions of cell volume fraction, yielding inter-layer differences of approximately 20 % (layer 3 vs. 2) to 50 % (layer 6 vs. 2) while remaining small (9–15 %) relative to extracellular fluid conductivity. The central claim is that incorporating these layer-specific values into macroscopic E-field models would improve accuracy of neural activation thresholds and spatial distributions.

Significance. If the derived conductivities prove representative, the work supplies a parameter-free route to embed mesoscale cortical heterogeneity into standard brain-stimulation simulations, potentially refining threshold predictions and activation maps without introducing additional free parameters. The monotonic convex dependence on volume fraction and the explicit linkage to independently measured layer data constitute a clear, falsifiable bridge between microscopic structure and macroscopic conductivity.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods (simplified microscopic models and interpolation): the effective conductivity is obtained from a volume-fraction-only effective-medium relation that omits cell geometry, orientation, membrane properties, and anisotropy. Because the headline recommendation—that layer-specific values improve threshold and activation estimates—rests on these values being quantitatively closer to reality than a uniform cortical conductivity, the absence of validation against measured layer conductivities or more detailed microstructural models leaves the reported 20–50 % inter-layer differences without direct empirical support.
  2. [Results] Results (layer interpolation): the experimental volume-fraction values used for layers 2–6 are not shown to derive from the same species, cortical area, or preparation conditions as the E-field models to which they would be applied. Any mismatch in these inputs would propagate directly into the claimed conductivity gradients and undermine the quantitative improvement asserted for stimulation modeling.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results: the statement that conductivity 'increased with depth from layer 2 to 6' should be accompanied by the explicit functional dependence or tabulated values so readers can reproduce the 20 % and 50 % differences.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each major comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we will revise the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (simplified microscopic models and interpolation): the effective conductivity is obtained from a volume-fraction-only effective-medium relation that omits cell geometry, orientation, membrane properties, and anisotropy. Because the headline recommendation—that layer-specific values improve threshold and activation estimates—rests on these values being quantitatively closer to reality than a uniform cortical conductivity, the absence of validation against measured layer conductivities or more detailed microstructural models leaves the reported 20–50 % inter-layer differences without direct empirical support.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important limitation. Our use of a simplified volume-fraction-based effective-medium model is intentional to establish a baseline, parameter-free approach that directly connects experimental volume fraction data to effective conductivity without additional free parameters. We recognize that this omits factors such as cell geometry and anisotropy, which could influence the quantitative values. However, the model follows from standard effective medium approximations and yields conductivities that remain within physically plausible bounds relative to extracellular fluid. To address the lack of direct validation, we will add a dedicated section in the revised manuscript discussing the model's assumptions, comparing it qualitatively to more detailed models from the literature, and outlining how future experimental measurements could validate or refine these estimates. This will clarify that the 20-50% differences are model-derived predictions rather than directly measured values. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results (layer interpolation): the experimental volume-fraction values used for layers 2–6 are not shown to derive from the same species, cortical area, or preparation conditions as the E-field models to which they would be applied. Any mismatch in these inputs would propagate directly into the claimed conductivity gradients and undermine the quantitative improvement asserted for stimulation modeling.

    Authors: We agree that transparency regarding the provenance of the input data is essential. The volume fraction values are taken from established experimental literature on cortical layering. In the revision, we will explicitly cite and describe the sources, including the species (typically rodent or primate studies), cortical areas, and experimental conditions. We will also add a discussion on potential inter-species or regional variations and how they might affect the applicability to specific E-field models. This will allow readers to better evaluate the robustness of the interpolated conductivity gradients. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; layer conductivities derived independently from experimental volume fractions

full rationale

The derivation estimates effective conductivity via simplified microscopic models that take extracellular volume fraction as the sole input variable, then assigns layer values by direct interpolation from independently measured experimental volume fractions. This produces the reported monotonic convex dependence and the 20-50% inter-layer differences without any parameter fitting to the downstream E-field thresholds or activation distributions, without self-referential definitions, and without load-bearing self-citations that would collapse the central claim back to its own assumptions. The recommendation to use layer-specific values therefore remains a hypothesis grounded in external data rather than a result forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard effective-medium approximation for conductivity and on the representativeness of published volume-fraction measurements; no new entities or ad-hoc parameters are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Effective tissue conductivity is a monotonic decreasing convex function of cell volume fraction, derived from simplified microscopic geometry.
    Invoked when converting volume-fraction data into layer conductivities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5838 in / 1285 out tokens · 34042 ms · 2026-05-21T18:56:40.682972+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: Definition, selection, and reporting practices

    Peterchev AV, Wagner TA, Miranda PC, Nitsche MA, Paulus W, Lisanby SH, et al. Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: Definition, selection, and reporting practices. Brain Stimulat 2012;5:435–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2011.10.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2011.10.001 2012

  2. [2]

    Simulation of transcranial magnetic stimulation in head model with morphologically-realistic cortical neurons

    Aberra AS, Wang B, Grill WM, Peterchev AV. Simulation of transcranial magnetic stimulation in head model with morphologically-realistic cortical neurons. Brain Stimulat 2020;13:175–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2019.10.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2019.10.002 2020

  3. [3]

    Coil optimisation for transcranial magnetic stimulation in realistic head geometry

    Koponen LM, Nieminen JO, Mutanen TP, Stenroos M, Ilmoniemi RJ. Coil optimisation for transcranial magnetic stimulation in realistic head geometry. Brain Stimulat 2017;10:795 –805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2017.04.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2017.04.001 2017

  4. [4]

    Bridging macroscopic and microscopic modeling of electric field by brain stimulation 2025:2025.04.07.647453

    Wang B, Aberra AS. Bridging macroscopic and microscopic modeling of electric field by brain stimulation 2025:2025.04.07.647453. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.04.07.647453

    work page doi:10.1101/2025.04.07.647453 2025

  5. [5]

    Computationally efficient simulation of electrical activity at cell membranes interacting with self-generated and externally imposed electric fields

    Agudelo-Toro A, Neef A. Computationally efficient simulation of electrical activity at cell membranes interacting with self-generated and externally imposed electric fields. J Neural Eng 2013;10:026019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/10/2/026019

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2560/10/2/026019 2013

  6. [6]

    Enabling electric field model of microscopically realistic brain

    Qi Z, Noetscher GM, Miles A, Weise K, Knösche TR, Cadman CR, et al. Enabling electric field model of microscopically realistic brain. Brain Stimulat 2025;18:77–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2024.12.1192

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2024.12.1192 2025

  7. [7]

    Statistical method accounts for microscopic electric field distortions around neurons when simulating activation thresholds

    Weise K, Makaroff SN, Numssen O, Bikson M, Knösche TR. Statistical method accounts for microscopic electric field distortions around neurons when simulating activation thresholds. Brain Stimulat 2025;18:280 –6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2025.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.02.007 2025

  8. [8]

    Importance of considering microscopic structures in modeling brain stimulation

    Qi Z, Noetscher GM, Miles A, Weise K, Knösche TR, Cadman CR, et al. Importance of considering microscopic structures in modeling brain stimulation. Brain Stimulat 2025;18:1150 –2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2025.06.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.06.003 2025

  9. [9]

    Microscopic electric fields form mesoscale electric fields and influence TMS activation thresholds

    Weise K, Makaroff SN, Qi Z, Danskin B, Numssen O, Bikson M, et al. Microscopic electric fields form mesoscale electric fields and influence TMS activation thresholds. Brain Stimul Basic Transl Clin Res Neuromodulation 2025;18:1852–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2025.09.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.09.016 2025

  10. [10]

    Single pointwise samples of electric field on a neuron model cannot predict activation threshold by brain stimulation

    Wang B, Hussain MA, Worbs T, Thielscher A, Grill WM, Peterchev AV. Single pointwise samples of electric field on a neuron model cannot predict activation threshold by brain stimulation. Brain Stimul Basic Transl Clin Res Neuromodulation 2025;18:1667–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2025.08.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.08.025 2025

  11. [11]

    Electrical conductivity in cat cerebellar cortex

    Yedlin M, Kwan H, Murphy JT, Nguyen-Huu H, Wong YC. Electrical conductivity in cat cerebellar cortex. Exp Neurol 1974;43:555–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4886(74)90195-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0014-4886(74)90195-2 1974

  12. [12]

    Conductivity in the somatosensory cortex of the cat — evidence for cortical anisotropy

    Hoeltzell PB, Dykes RW. Conductivity in the somatosensory cortex of the cat — evidence for cortical anisotropy. Brain Res 1979;177:61–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(79)90918-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0006-8993(79)90918-1 1979

  13. [13]

    Electrical conductivity of the hippocampal CA1 layers and application to current -source- density analysis

    Holsheimer J. Electrical conductivity of the hippocampal CA1 layers and application to current -source- density analysis. Exp Brain Res 1987;67:402–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00248560

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00248560 1987

  14. [14]

    An Evaluation of the Conductivity Profile in the Somatosensory Barrel Cortex of Wistar Rats

    Goto T, Hatanaka R, Ogawa T, Sumiyoshi A, Riera J, Kawashima R. An Evaluation of the Conductivity Profile in the Somatosensory Barrel Cortex of Wistar Rats. J Neurophysiol 2010;104:3388–412. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00122.2010

    work page doi:10.1152/jn.00122.2010 2010

  15. [15]

    Laminar profile of resistivity in frog retina

    Karwoski CJ, Frambach DA, Proenza LM. Laminar profile of resistivity in frog retina. J Neurophysiol 1985;54:1607–19

    work page 1985

  16. [16]

    Resistivity profiles of wild-type, rd1, and rd10 mouse retina

    Wang B, Weiland JD. Resistivity profiles of wild-type, rd1, and rd10 mouse retina. 2015 37th Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. EMBC, Milan, Italy: 2015, p. 1650–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2015.7318692. 19

    work page doi:10.1109/embc.2015.7318692 2015

  17. [17]

    Direct localised measurement of electrical resistivity profile in rat and embryonic chick retinas using a microprobe

    Kasi H, Meissner R, Babalian A, van Lintel H, Bertsch A, Renaud P. Direct localised measurement of electrical resistivity profile in rat and embryonic chick retinas using a microprobe. J Electr Bioimpedance 2011;1:84–92. https://doi.org/10.5617/jeb.149

    work page doi:10.5617/jeb.149 2011

  18. [18]

    Modelling motor cortex stimulation for chronic pain control: Electrical potential field, activating functions and responses of simple nerve fibre models

    Manola L, Roelofsen BH, Holsheimer J, Marani E, Geelen J. Modelling motor cortex stimulation for chronic pain control: Electrical potential field, activating functions and responses of simple nerve fibre models. Med Biol Eng Comput 2005;43:335–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345810

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02345810 2005

  19. [19]

    On the computation of a retina resistivity profile for applications in multi-scale modeling of electrical stimulation and absorption

    Loizos K, RamRakhyani AK, Anderson J, Marc R, Lazzi G. On the computation of a retina resistivity profile for applications in multi-scale modeling of electrical stimulation and absorption. Phys Med Biol 2016;61:4491–505. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/12/4491

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/61/12/4491 2016

  20. [20]

    The effect of brain tissue anisotropy on the electric field caused by transcranial electric stimulation: Sensitivity analysis and magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography

    Mosayebi-Samani M, Cunha T, Eroğlu HH, Siebner HR, Nitsche MA, Thielscher A. The effect of brain tissue anisotropy on the electric field caused by transcranial electric stimulation: Sensitivity analysis and magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography. Imaging Neurosci 2025;3:imag_a_00481. https://doi.org/10.1162/imag_a_00481

    work page doi:10.1162/imag_a_00481 2025

  21. [21]

    Comparison of Five Conductivity Tensor Models and Image Reconstruction Methods Using MRI

    Katoch N, Choi B-K, Park J-A, Ko I-O, Kim H-J. Comparison of Five Conductivity Tensor Models and Image Reconstruction Methods Using MRI. Molecules 2021;26:5499. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26185499

    work page doi:10.3390/molecules26185499 2021

  22. [22]

    Layers of the monkey visual cortex are selectively modulated during electrical stimulation

    Lee S, Zhao Z, Alekseichuk I, Park J, Shirinpour S, Linn G, et al. Layers of the monkey visual cortex are selectively modulated during electrical stimulation. PLOS Biol 2025;23:e3003278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003278

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003278 2025

  23. [24]

    Bridging the 3D geometrical organisation of white matter pathways across anatomical length scales and species

    Kjer HM, Andersson M, He Y, Pacureanu A, Daducci A, Pizzolato M, et al. Bridging the 3D geometrical organisation of white matter pathways across anatomical length scales and species. eLife 2025;13:RP94917. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.94917

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.94917 2025

  24. [25]

    A petavoxel fragment of human cerebral cortex reconstructed at nanoscale resolution

    Shapson-Coe A, Januszewski M, Berger DR, Pope A, Wu Y, Blakely T, et al. A petavoxel fragment of human cerebral cortex reconstructed at nanoscale resolution. Science 2024;384:eadk4858. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk4858

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adk4858 2024

  25. [26]

    Electrical Impedance Tomography: Tissue Properties to Image Measures

    Adler A, Boyle A. Electrical Impedance Tomography: Tissue Properties to Image Measures. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2017;64:2494–504. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2017.2728323

    work page doi:10.1109/tbme.2017.2728323 2017

  26. [27]

    Cell Culture Imaging Using Microimpedance Tomography

    Linderholm P, Marescot L, Loke MH, Renaud P. Cell Culture Imaging Using Microimpedance Tomography. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008;55:138–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2007.910649

    work page doi:10.1109/tbme.2007.910649 2008

  27. [28]

    In Vivo Measurement of Cortical Impedance Spectrum in Monkeys: Implications for Signal Propagation

    Logothetis NK, Kayser C, Oeltermann A. In Vivo Measurement of Cortical Impedance Spectrum in Monkeys: Implications for Signal Propagation. Neuron 2007;55:809–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.027 2007

  28. [29]

    Specific impedance of cerebral white matter

    Nicholson PW. Specific impedance of cerebral white matter. Exp Neurol 1965;13:386–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4886(65)90126-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0014-4886(65)90126-3 1965

  29. [30]

    Extracellular space parameters in the rat neocortex and subcortical white matter during postnatal development determined by diffusion analysis

    Lehmenkühler A, Syková E, Svoboda J, Zilles K, Nicholson C. Extracellular space parameters in the rat neocortex and subcortical white matter during postnatal development determined by diffusion analysis. Neuroscience 1993;55:339–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(93)90503-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0306-4522(93)90503-8 1993

  30. [31]

    On the parameters used in finite element modeling of compound peripheral nerves

    Pelot NA, Behrend CE, Grill WM. On the parameters used in finite element modeling of compound peripheral nerves. J Neural Eng 2019;16:016007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741 -2552/aaeb0c

    work page doi:10.1088/1741 2019

  31. [32]

    Determination of the electrical impedance of neural tissue from its microscopic cellular constituents

    Monfared O, Tahayori B, Freestone D, Nešić D, Grayden DB, Meffin H. Determination of the electrical impedance of neural tissue from its microscopic cellular constituents. J Neural Eng 2020;17:016037. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab560a

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab560a 2020

  32. [33]

    Reconstruction of neocortex: Organelles, compartments, cells, circuits, and activity

    Turner NL, Macrina T, Bae JA, Yang R, Wilson AM, Schneider-Mizell C, et al. Reconstruction of neocortex: Organelles, compartments, cells, circuits, and activity. Cell 2022;185:1082 -1100.e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.023 2022

  33. [34]

    Ultrastructural analysis of adult mouse neocortex comparing aldehyde perfusion with cryo fixation

    Korogod N, Petersen CC, Knott GW. Ultrastructural analysis of adult mouse neocortex comparing aldehyde perfusion with cryo fixation. eLife 2015;4:e05793. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05793

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.05793 2015

  34. [35]

    Ultrastructural comparison of dendritic spine morphology preserved with cryo and chemical fixation

    Tamada H, Blanc J, Korogod N, Petersen CC, Knott GW. Ultrastructural comparison of dendritic spine morphology preserved with cryo and chemical fixation. eLife 2020;9:e56384. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.56384. 20

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.56384 2020

  35. [36]

    Membrane mechanics dictate axonal pearls-on-a-string morphology and function

    Griswold JM, Bonilla-Quintana M, Pepper R, Lee CT, Raychaudhuri S, Ma S, et al. Membrane mechanics dictate axonal pearls-on-a-string morphology and function. Nat Neurosci 2024:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-024-01813-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41593-024-01813-1 2024

  36. [37]

    Brain Extracellular Space: The Final Frontier of Neuroscience

    Nicholson C, Hrabětová S. Brain Extracellular Space: The Final Frontier of Neuroscience. Biophys J 2017;113:2133–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2017.06.052

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2017.06.052 2017

  37. [38]

    Dense 4D nanoscale reconstruction of living brain tissue

    Velicky P, Miguel E, Michalska JM, Lyudchik J, Wei D, Lin Z, et al. Dense 4D nanoscale reconstruction of living brain tissue. Nat Methods 2023;20:1256–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-023-01936-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-023-01936-6 2023

  38. [39]

    A treatise on electricity and magnetism

    Maxwell JC. A treatise on electricity and magnetism. vol. 1. Clarendon press; 1873

    work page

  39. [40]

    On the influence of obstacles arranged in rectangular order upon the properties of a medium

    Rayleigh L. On the influence of obstacles arranged in rectangular order upon the properties of a medium. Lond Edinb Dublin Philos Mag J Sci 1892;34:481–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449208620364

    work page doi:10.1080/14786449208620364

  40. [41]

    Estimation of the Electrical Conductivity of Human Tissue

    Peters MJ, Stinstra G, Hendriks M. Estimation of the Electrical Conductivity of Human Tissue. Electromagnetics 2001;21:545–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/027263401752246199

    work page doi:10.1080/027263401752246199 2001

  41. [42]

    The Effective Conductivity and the Induced Transmembrane Potential in Dense Cell System Exposed to DC and AC Electric Fields

    Pavlin M, Miklavcic D. The Effective Conductivity and the Induced Transmembrane Potential in Dense Cell System Exposed to DC and AC Electric Fields. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 2009;37:99 –106. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2008.2005292

    work page doi:10.1109/tps.2008.2005292 2009

  42. [43]

    Resistance to Potential Flow through a Cubical Array of Spheres

    Meredith RE, Tobias CW. Resistance to Potential Flow through a Cubical Array of Spheres. J Appl Phys 1960;31:1270–3. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1735816

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1735816 1960

  43. [44]

    Spatial and temporal frequency-dependent conductivities in volume- conduction calculations for skeletal muscle

    Roth BJ, Gielen FLH, Wikswo JP. Spatial and temporal frequency-dependent conductivities in volume- conduction calculations for skeletal muscle. Math Biosci 1988;88:159–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025- 5564(88)90041-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0025- 1988

  44. [45]

    Modelling extracellular electrical stimulation: III

    Meffin H, Tahayori B, Sergeev EN, Mareels IMY, Grayden DB, Burkitt AN. Modelling extracellular electrical stimulation: III. Derivation and interpretation of neural tissue equations. J Neural Eng 2014;11:065004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2560/11/6/065004

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-2560/11/6/065004 2014

  45. [46]

    Maximum geometrical hindrance to diffusion in brain extracellular space surrounding uniformly spaced convex cells

    Tao L, Nicholson C. Maximum geometrical hindrance to diffusion in brain extracellular space surrounding uniformly spaced convex cells. J Theor Biol 2004;229:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.03.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.03.003 2004

  46. [47]

    The electrical conductivity of human cerebrospinal fluid at body temperature

    Baumann SB, Wozny DR, Kelly SK, Meno FM. The electrical conductivity of human cerebrospinal fluid at body temperature. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1997;44:220–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/10.554770

    work page doi:10.1109/10.554770 1997

  47. [48]

    Cell Volume Fraction Determines Layer-specific Tissue Conductivity in the Cortex

    Wang B, Grill WM, Peterchev AV. Cell Volume Fraction Determines Layer-specific Tissue Conductivity in the Cortex. Neural Interfaces 2025, Arlington, VA, USA: 2025

    work page 2025