Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24872575›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2014

Modeling inheritance of phase precession in the hippocampal formation.

Jorge Jaramillo, Robert Schmidt, Richard Kempter

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Cell-Type Specific Phase Precession in Layer II of the Medial Entorhinal Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2016
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. State-dependencies of learning across brain scales.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jorge JaramilloDepartment of Biology, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany, Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany, and Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Neuroscience Research Center, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Robert SchmidtDepartment of Biology, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany, Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany, and.
Richard KempterDepartment of Biology, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany, Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany, and r.kempter@biologie.hu-berlin.de.
Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spatial information about the environment is encoded by the activity of place and grid cells in the hippocampal formation. As an animal traverses a cell's firing field, action potentials progressively shift to earlier phases of the theta oscillation (6-10 Hz). This "phase precession" is observed also in the prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum, but mechanisms for its generation are unknown. However, once phase precession exists in one region, it might also propagate to downstream regions. Using a computational model, we analyze such inheritance of phase precession, for example, from the entorhinal cortex to CA1 and from CA3 to CA1. We find that distinctive subthreshold and suprathreshold features of the membrane potential of CA1 pyramidal cells (Harvey et al., 2009; Mizuseki et al., 2012; Royer et al., 2012) can be explained by inheritance and that excitatory input is essential. The model explains how inhibition modulates the slope and range of phase precession and provides two main testable predictions. First, theta-modulated inhibitory input to a CA1 pyramidal cell is not necessary for phase precession. Second, theta-modulated inhibitory input on its own generates membrane potential peaks that are in phase with peaks of the extracellular field. Furthermore, we suggest that the spatial distribution of field centers of a population of phase-precessing input cells determines, not only the place selectivity, but also the characteristics of phase precession of the targeted output cell. The inheritance model thus can explain why phase precession is observed throughout the hippocampal formation and other areas of the brain.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAction PotentialsHippocampusMembrane PotentialsPrefrontal CortexCA1entorhinal cortexhippocampusinheritancephase precessiontheta oscillations

Identifiers

PMID24872575
PMCPMC6795251
OpenAlexW2040719582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.