ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2014
Connection-type-specific biases make uniform random network models consistent with cortical recordings.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging heterogeneity for neural computation with fading memory in layer 2/3 cortical microcircuits.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Progress and challenges for understanding the function of cortical microcircuits in auditory processing.Nature communications · 2017Review
- Article
- On the Structure of Cortical Microcircuits Inferred from Small Sample Sizes.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2017Article
- Cortical Dynamics in Presence of Assemblies of Densely Connected Weight-Hub Neurons.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.