Fontenele and collaborators reported extensive analyses of power-law scalings of neuronal avalanches in experimental recordings and in a critical theoretical model. One of their main conclusions is that the brain operates at criticality in specific regimes. To prove this point, they developed a test (hereafter, "Fontenele test") for criticality, which they indicate to rely on our own theoretical result. However, the results we established do not provide necessary and sufficient conditions for criticality , and cannot be extrapolated to derive a test for criticality. Moreover, the authors did not include any control applying the Fontenele test to non-critical systems , to assess possible differences with the experimental data. We propose here two such controls, and show that the Fontenele test can misclassify as critical these non-critical systems . This implies that the analyses of Fontenele et al. do not support their conclusions, and the question of whether the brain operates at criticality remains open .
Many studies have found evidence that the brain operates at a critical point, a processus known as URLanized criticality. A recent paper found remarkable scalings suggestive of criticality in systems as different as neural cultures, anesthetized or awake brains. We point out here that the diversity of these states would question any claimed role of criticality in information processing. Furthermore, we show that two non-critical systems pass all the tests for criticality, a control that was not provided in the original article. We conclude that such false positives demonstrate that the presence of criticality in the brain is still not proven and that we need better methods that scaling analyses .
R
Fontenele and collaborators reported extensive analyses of power-law scalings of neuronal avalanches in experimental recordings and in a critical theoretical model. One of their main conclusions is
Many studies have found evidence
R
criticality in specific regimes. To prove this point, they developed a test (hereafter, "Fontenele test") for criticality, which they indicate to rely on our own theoretical result. However, the results we established do not provide necessary and sufficient conditions for criticality , and cannot be extrapolated to derive a test for criticality. Moreover, the authors did not include any control applying the Fontenele test to non-critical systems , to assess possible differences with the experimental data. We propose here two such controls, and show that the Fontenele test can misclassify as critical these
a critical point, a processus known as URLanized criticality. A recent paper found remarkable scalings suggestive of criticality in systems as different as neural cultures, anesthetized or awake brains. We point out here that the diversity of these states would question any claimed role of criticality in information processing. Furthermore, we show that two
R
. This implies that the analyses of Fontenele et al. do not support their conclusions, and the question of whether the brain operates at criticality remains open
pass all the tests for criticality, a control that was not provided in the original article. We conclude that such false positives demonstrate that the presence of criticality in the brain is still not proven and that we need better methods that scaling analyses