Mathematical Summarizations of Individual Neuron Structures

  • Joseph J. Capowski


From Chapter 1 you may recall that there are two major reasons for using a computer to model neuroanatomical structures: to present views of the tissue that are superior to those visible in the unassisted microscope and to generate mathematical summaries that describe individual structures and compare one population of them to another population. Figure 9-1 shows a scientist summarizing a botanical tree, making the measurements on the actual growing tree. You are not so lucky, for usually you cannot measure a growing neuron. However, with help from computer programs, you may summarize the data base that represents the neurons.


Form Factor Branch Point Dendritic Spine Branch Order Distribution Axis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

For Further Reading

  1. Brown, C. (1977). Neuron orientations: A computer application. In: Computer Analysis of Neuronal Structures ( R. D. Lindsay, ed.). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Lindsay, R. D. (1977c). Tree analysis of neuronal processes. In: Computer Analysis of Neuronal Structures ( R. D. Lindsay, ed.). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lindsay, R. D. (1977d). Neuronal field analysis using Fourier series. In: Computer Analysis of Neuronal Structures ( R. D. Lindsay, ed.). New York: Plenum Press, pp. 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Yelnik, J., G. Percheron, C. François, and Y. Burnod (1983). Principal component analysis: A suitable method for the 3-dimensional study of the shape, dimensions and orientation of dendritic arborizations. J. Neurosci. Methods 9: 115–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glaser, E. M., and N. T. McMullen (1984). The fan-in projection method for analyzing dendrite and axon systems. J. Neurosci. Methods 12: 37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Rose, R. D., and D. Rohrlich (1987). Counting sectioned cells via mathematical reconstruction. J. Comp. Neurol. 263: 365–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buell, S. J., and P. D. Coleman (1981). Quantitative evidence for selective dendritic growth in normal human aging but not in senile dementia. Brain Res. 214: 23–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher, J. B., and H. Honda (1977). Computer simulation of branching pattern and geometry in terminalia (combretaceae), a tropical tree. Bot. Gaz. 138 (4): 377–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Honda, H., and J. B. Fisher (1978). Tree branch angle: Maximizing effective leaf area. Science 199: 888–890.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Verwer, R. W. H., and J. Van Pelt (1986). Descriptive and comparative analysis of geometrical properties of neuronal tree structures. J. Neurosci. Methods 18: 179–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ireland, W., J. Heidel, and E. Uemura (1985). A mathematical model for the growth of dendritic trees. Neurosci. Lett. 54: 243–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Uylings, H. B. M., A. Ruiz-Marcos. and J. van Pelt (1986a). The metric analysis of three-dimensional dendritic tree patterns: A methodological review. J. Neurosci. Methods 18: 127–151.Google Scholar
  13. Rall, W. (1977). Core conductor theory and cable properties of neurons, hi: Handbook of Physiology, Section I: The Nervous System, Vol. 1, part 1 (J. M. Brookhart and V. B. Mountcastle, Section eds.; E. R. Kandel, Vol. ed.). Bethesda: American Physiological Society, pp. 39–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph J. Capowski
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Eutectic Electronics, Inc.RaleighUSA
  2. 2.The University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations