ArticleNeural computation2008
Spike train probability models for stimulus-driven leaky integrate-and-fire neurons.
Article in Neural computation, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Establishing a Statistical Link between Network Oscillations and Neural Synchrony.PLoS computational biology · 2015Article
- Applying the multivariate time-rescaling theorem to neural population models.Neural computation · 2011Article
- Extraction of Network Topology From Multi-Electrode Recordings: Is there a Small-World Effect?Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2011Article
- Methods for estimating neural firing rates, and their application to brain-machine interfaces.Neural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network Society · 2009Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mathematical models of neurons are widely used to improve understanding of neuronal spiking behavior. These models can produce artificial spike trains that resemble actual spike train data in important ways, but they are not very easy to apply to the analysis of spike train data. Instead, statistical methods based on point process models of spike trains provide a wide range of data-analytical techniques. Two simplified point process models have been introduced in the literature: the time-rescaled renewal process (TRRP) and the multiplicative inhomogeneous Markov interval (m-IMI) model. In this letter we investigate the extent to which the TRRP and m-IMI models are able to fit spike trains produced by stimulus-driven leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons. With a constant stimulus, the LIF spike train is a renewal process, and the m-IMI and TRRP models will describe accurately the LIF spike train variability. With a time-varying stimulus, the probability of spiking under all three of these models depends on both the experimental clock time relative to the stimulus and the time since the previous spike, but it does so differently for the LIF, m-IMI, and TRRP models. We assessed the distance between the LIF model and each of the two empirical models in the presence of a time-varying stimulus. We found that while lack of fit of a Poisson model to LIF spike train data can be evident even in small samples, the m-IMI and TRRP models tend to fit well, and much larger samples are required before there is statistical evidence of lack of fit of the m-IMI or TRRP models. We also found that when the mean of the stimulus varies across time, the m-IMI model provides a better fit to the LIF data than the TRRP, and when the variance of the stimulus varies across time, the TRRP provides the better fit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.