Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24944218›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2014

Connection-type-specific biases make uniform random network models consistent with cortical recordings.

Christian Tomm, Michael Avermann, Carl Petersen, Wulfram Gerstner, Tim P Vogels

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. On the Structure of Cortical Microcircuits Inferred from Small Sample Sizes.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017
    Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Christian TommSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences and School of Life Sciences, Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland;
Michael AvermannLaboratory of Sensory Processing, Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; and.
Carl PetersenLaboratory of Sensory Processing, Brain Mind Institute, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; and.
Wulfram GerstnerSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences and School of Life Sciences, Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland;
Tim P VogelsSchool of Computer and Communication Sciences and School of Life Sciences, Brain Mind Institute, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Genetics, The University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom tim.vogels@cncb.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 090309Wellcome Trust 100000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uniform random sparse network architectures are ubiquitous in computational neuroscience, but the implicit hypothesis that they are a good representation of real neuronal networks has been met with skepticism. Here we used two experimental data sets, a study of triplet connectivity statistics and a data set measuring neuronal responses to channelrhodopsin stimuli, to evaluate the fidelity of thousands of model networks. Network architectures comprised three neuron types (excitatory, fast spiking, and nonfast spiking inhibitory) and were created from a set of rules that govern the statistics of the resulting connection types. In a high-dimensional parameter scan, we varied the degree distributions (i.e., how many cells each neuron connects with) and the synaptic weight correlations of synapses from or onto the same neuron. These variations converted initially uniform random and homogeneously connected networks, in which every neuron sent and received equal numbers of synapses with equal synaptic strength distributions, to highly heterogeneous networks in which the number of synapses per neuron, as well as average synaptic strength of synapses from or to a neuron were variable. By evaluating the impact of each variable on the network structure and dynamics, and their similarity to the experimental data, we could falsify the uniform random sparse connectivity hypothesis for 7 of 36 connectivity parameters, but we also confirmed the hypothesis in 8 cases. Twenty-one parameters had no substantial impact on the results of the test protocols we used.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalNeural Networks, ComputerAction PotentialsAnimalsCerebral CortexComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansNerve NetNeuronsOptogeneticsSynapseslayer 2/3 sensory cortexneuronal network modelsrandom connectivity

Identifiers

PMID24944218
PMCPMC4200009

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.