A consideration of neural counting methods

Richard E. Coggeshall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

509 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It is often necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of neuronal or synaptic numbers. In the past, estimates were almost always done by counting profiles of these structures in single histological sections. Assumptions were then made and calculations were done to determine particle numbers or ratios. To the extent that the assumptions deviated from reality, the conclusions will be biased. That these biases are, in fact, serious has recently become apparent. To obtain unbiased particle counts, the presently available methods are serial-section reconstructions (which are accurate but cumbersome), and the recently developed disector method. The disector method, because it is unbiased and easy to use, is becoming the method of choice. The goals of this paper are to show why previous methods are biased and to describe the rationale behind the disector method so that neuroscientists can consider its appropriateness for their work.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)9-13
Number of pages5
JournalTrends in Neurosciences
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1992
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

A consideration of neural counting methods. / Coggeshall, Richard E.

In: Trends in Neurosciences, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1992, p. 9-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Coggeshall, Richard E. / A consideration of neural counting methods. In: Trends in Neurosciences. 1992 ; Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 9-13.
@article{9c834fa96a9a43f7bc30345798a00d01,
title = "A consideration of neural counting methods",
abstract = "It is often necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of neuronal or synaptic numbers. In the past, estimates were almost always done by counting profiles of these structures in single histological sections. Assumptions were then made and calculations were done to determine particle numbers or ratios. To the extent that the assumptions deviated from reality, the conclusions will be biased. That these biases are, in fact, serious has recently become apparent. To obtain unbiased particle counts, the presently available methods are serial-section reconstructions (which are accurate but cumbersome), and the recently developed disector method. The disector method, because it is unbiased and easy to use, is becoming the method of choice. The goals of this paper are to show why previous methods are biased and to describe the rationale behind the disector method so that neuroscientists can consider its appropriateness for their work.",
author = "Coggeshall, {Richard E.}",
year = "1992",
doi = "10.1016/0166-2236(92)90339-A",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "9--13",
journal = "Trends in Neurosciences",
issn = "0378-5912",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A consideration of neural counting methods

AU - Coggeshall, Richard E.

PY - 1992

Y1 - 1992

N2 - It is often necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of neuronal or synaptic numbers. In the past, estimates were almost always done by counting profiles of these structures in single histological sections. Assumptions were then made and calculations were done to determine particle numbers or ratios. To the extent that the assumptions deviated from reality, the conclusions will be biased. That these biases are, in fact, serious has recently become apparent. To obtain unbiased particle counts, the presently available methods are serial-section reconstructions (which are accurate but cumbersome), and the recently developed disector method. The disector method, because it is unbiased and easy to use, is becoming the method of choice. The goals of this paper are to show why previous methods are biased and to describe the rationale behind the disector method so that neuroscientists can consider its appropriateness for their work.

AB - It is often necessary to obtain unbiased estimates of neuronal or synaptic numbers. In the past, estimates were almost always done by counting profiles of these structures in single histological sections. Assumptions were then made and calculations were done to determine particle numbers or ratios. To the extent that the assumptions deviated from reality, the conclusions will be biased. That these biases are, in fact, serious has recently become apparent. To obtain unbiased particle counts, the presently available methods are serial-section reconstructions (which are accurate but cumbersome), and the recently developed disector method. The disector method, because it is unbiased and easy to use, is becoming the method of choice. The goals of this paper are to show why previous methods are biased and to describe the rationale behind the disector method so that neuroscientists can consider its appropriateness for their work.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026567764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026567764&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0166-2236(92)90339-A

DO - 10.1016/0166-2236(92)90339-A

M3 - Article

C2 - 1374957

AN - SCOPUS:0026567764

VL - 15

SP - 9

EP - 13

JO - Trends in Neurosciences

JF - Trends in Neurosciences

SN - 0378-5912

IS - 1

ER -