Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24634645›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neural circuits2014

Comparison of the dynamics of neural interactions between current-based and conductance-based integrate-and-fire recurrent networks.

Stefano Cavallari, Stefano Panzeri, Alberto Mazzoni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neural circuits, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Python toolbox for neural circuit parameter inference.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Neurobiological Causal Models of Language Processing.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. EXACT SPIKE TRAIN INFERENCE VIA ℓThe annals of applied statistics · 2018
    Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Stefano CavallariCenter for Neuroscience and Cognitive Systems@UniTn, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia Rovereto, Italy.
Stefano PanzeriCenter for Neuroscience and Cognitive Systems@UniTn, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia Rovereto, Italy ; Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics Tübingen, Germany.
Alberto MazzoniCenter for Neuroscience and Cognitive Systems@UniTn, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia Rovereto, Italy ; The BioRobotics Institute, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Models of networks of Leaky Integrate-and-Fire (LIF) neurons are a widely used tool for theoretical investigations of brain function. These models have been used both with current- and conductance-based synapses. However, the differences in the dynamics expressed by these two approaches have been so far mainly studied at the single neuron level. To investigate how these synaptic models affect network activity, we compared the single neuron and neural population dynamics of conductance-based networks (COBNs) and current-based networks (CUBNs) of LIF neurons. These networks were endowed with sparse excitatory and inhibitory recurrent connections, and were tested in conditions including both low- and high-conductance states. We developed a novel procedure to obtain comparable networks by properly tuning the synaptic parameters not shared by the models. The so defined comparable networks displayed an excellent and robust match of first order statistics (average single neuron firing rates and average frequency spectrum of network activity). However, these comparable networks showed profound differences in the second order statistics of neural population interactions and in the modulation of these properties by external inputs. The correlation between inhibitory and excitatory synaptic currents and the cross-neuron correlation between synaptic inputs, membrane potentials and spike trains were stronger and more stimulus-modulated in the COBN. Because of these properties, the spike train correlation carried more information about the strength of the input in the COBN, although the firing rates were equally informative in both network models. Moreover, the network activity of COBN showed stronger synchronization in the gamma band, and spectral information about the input higher and spread over a broader range of frequencies. These results suggest that the second order statistics of network dynamics depend strongly on the choice of synaptic model.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, NeurologicalAction PotentialsNerve NetNeural InhibitionNeuronsSynaptic Transmissionconductance based neuron modelscorrelation analysiscurrent based neuron modelsinformation encodingintegrate-and-fire neuronslocal field potentialsrecurrent neural networkspike correlation

Identifiers

PMID24634645
PMCPMC3943173

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.