Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27909841›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2017

The shaping of intrinsic membrane potential oscillations: positive/negative feedback, ionic resonance/amplification, nonlinearities and time scales.

Horacio G Rotstein

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. High-Pass Filtering through Short-Term Synaptic Facilitation Amplifies Low-Frequency Modulation of Bursting Input.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

1 author.

Horacio G RotsteinDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA. horacio@njit.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4387-5160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The generation of intrinsic subthreshold (membrane potential) oscillations (STOs) in neuronal models requires the interaction between two processes: a relatively fast positive feedback that favors changes in voltage and a slower negative feedback that opposes these changes. These are provided by the so-called resonant and amplifying gating variables associated to the participating ionic currents. We investigate both the biophysical and dynamic mechanisms of generation of STOs and how their attributes (frequency and amplitude) depend on the model parameters for biophysical (conductance-based) models having qualitatively different types of resonant currents (activating and inactivating) and an amplifying current. Combinations of the same types of ionic currents (same models) in different parameter regimes give rise to different types of nonlinearities in the voltage equation: quasi-linear, parabolic-like and cubic-like. On the other hand, combinations of different types of ionic currents (different models) may give rise to the same type of nonlinearities. We examine how the attributes of the resulting STOs depend on the combined effect of these resonant and amplifying ionic processes, operating at different effective time scales, and the various types of nonlinearities. We find that, while some STO properties and attribute dependencies on the model parameters are determined by the specific combinations of ionic currents (biophysical properties), and are different for models with different such combinations, others are determined by the type of nonlinearities and are common for models with different types of ionic currents. Our results highlight the richness of STO behavior in single cells as the result of the various ways in which resonant and amplifying currents interact and affect the generation and termination of STOs as control parameters change. We make predictions that can be tested experimentally and are expected to contribute to the understanding of how rhythmic activity in neuronal networks emerge from the interplay of the intrinsic properties of the participating neurons and the network connectivity.

Indexed as

Membrane PotentialsModels, NeurologicalBiophysicsNeuronsCanard phenomenonNonlinear oscillationsPhase-plane analysisPositive and negative feedbackRegulatory mechanismsResonant and amplifying currentsSubthreshold oscillationsTime scale separation effects

Identifiers

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.