Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24348372›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2013

Patterns of interval correlations in neural oscillators with adaptation.

Tilo Schwalger, Benjamin Lindner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. An integrate-and-fire approach to CaBiophysical journal · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Phase-resetting as a tool of information transmission.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tilo SchwalgerBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, Germany ; Department of Physics, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Berlin, Germany.
Benjamin LindnerBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, Germany ; Department of Physics, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural firing is often subject to negative feedback by adaptation currents. These currents can induce strong correlations among the time intervals between spikes. Here we study analytically the interval correlations of a broad class of noisy neural oscillators with spike-triggered adaptation of arbitrary strength and time scale. Our weak-noise theory provides a general relation between the correlations and the phase-response curve (PRC) of the oscillator, proves anti-correlations between neighboring intervals for adapting neurons with type I PRC and identifies a single order parameter that determines the qualitative pattern of correlations. Monotonically decaying or oscillating correlation structures can be related to qualitatively different voltage traces after spiking, which can be explained by the phase plane geometry. At high firing rates, the long-term variability of the spike train associated with the cumulative interval correlations becomes small, independent of model details. Our results are verified by comparison with stochastic simulations of the exponential, leaky, and generalized integrate-and-fire models with adaptation.

Indexed as

integrate-and-fire modellong-term variabilitynon-renewal processphase-response curveserial correlation coefficientspike-frequency adaptation

Identifiers

PMID24348372
PMCPMC3843362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.