This distinction between open- and closed-field contributions becomes particularly problematic when different measures with distinctive properties are combined, such as electrical and metabolic indices, or field potentials recorded from macroscopic and microscopic electrode contacts. Such convergent solutions cannot rely on more sophisticated inverse models or independent imaging data, but require an extensive mapping of the intracranial field. Finally, none of these approaches can be applied without an intimate understanding of both the method and the neuronal processes involved. As succinctly stated by Nunez and Silberstein (2000) in their abstract (p. 79): “Each experimental measure of brain function is generally sensitive to a different kind of source activity and to different spatial and temporal scales. Failure to appreciate such distinctions can exacerbate conflicting views of brain function that emphasize either global integration or functional localization.”
