Thanks Gabriele for directing me to your work..looks interesting..I'll go through that paper and related ones in the field of computation neurobiology. I'll get back to you, if any further queries..thanks again 

Interesting question. It carries an analogy to the concept of theory of everything in physics. In addition, it will answer many queries, and especially, how can we interpret conscious experience into brain dynamics. The reason why I am thinking of the dilemma of consciousness in this context, is because consciousness is the phenotype of neuronal network cross-talk. Previous studies has shown that neuronal networks from different areas must oscillate in 40Hz range to be coupled. That will let them transfer information in a meaningful way to culminate in a conscious experience. The thalamus, the relay station for many of the highways of neuronal signals coming to or from different part of the nervous system, play an important role in this mechanism. So I think that studying the thalamic oscillation recorded by DBS electrode in patients with chronic pain or essential tremor, will add to our coupling mechanism understanding. I regard myself junior to the field of neuroscience and neurophysiology, but this is my understanding to the answer of how neuronal networks from different areas cross talk. It will be nice to put all the neurophysiologic tools together in order to understand this mechanism, but it seems as difficult quest.  

 Hello Kaviraja,

Your question is a biggy, and touches on some fundamental and unresolved issues in neuroscience.

I separate your question to two parts 1) which 'level' (EEG, LFP, Single Unit, Single synapse) one should look at and 2) how to assess communication.

As to recording the correct level, my money on is on model organisms, such as flies and zebrafish in which we will have (widely available) single neurons resolution across the whole brain in the (near-ish) future. Hopefully we will then understand how low level dynamics (e.g. single neurons) relate to higher level ones (e.g. LFP). This goes some way to resolving the experimental issues with imaging. For example, have a look here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q-g1uCvYOA. there has been some further advancements over the last few years. 

The second one is somewhat more difficult, which I further breakdown into 1) how to measure 'communication' between brain areas 2) what does it mean? 

As to measuring communication, you've touched on phase-amplitude coupling but there are scores of other measures. There is no consensus on which one to use when. I think one worthy line of inquiry is to understand how the various measures relate. I guess Gabriel's work may also be informative in this sense. 

Finally,  what does communication mean in the context of the brain?

In a sense Shannon spelled this out more than 60 years ago, and I'm a big fan of applying information theory to neuroscience (for a recent excellent example see http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/07/05/cercor.bhw200.abstract). One of the advantages is that,  in general, such approaches do not require a specification of the communication mechanism. In contrast, phase amplitude coupling for example is based on the assumption that brain areas communicate in this way. On the down side, there is no consensus on how to extend information theory to multivariate systems - its an active area of research.

To sum up - I don't know how to "integrate all these to better understand the physiology of neuronal communication effectively", but I hope that my breakdown into some sub-problems helps identify where some of the fundamental difficulties lie. 

I've skimped on references but please write back if you want more info.