ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2019
Neural network model of an amphibian ventilatory central pattern generator.
Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The neuronal multiunit model presented here is a formal model of the central pattern generator (CPG) of the amphibian ventilatory neural network, inspired by experimental data from Pelophylax ridibundus. The kernel of the CPG consists of three pacemakers and two follower neurons (buccal and lung respectively). This kernel is connected to a chain of excitatory and inhibitory neurons organized in loops. Simulations are performed with Izhikevich-type neurons. When driven by the buccal follower, the excitatory neurons transmit and reorganize the follower activity pattern along the chain, and when driven by the lung follower, the excitatory and inhibitory neurons of the chain fire in synchrony. The additive effects of synaptic inputs from the pacemakers on the buccal follower account for (1) the low frequency buccal rhythm, (2) the intra-burst high frequency oscillations, and (3) the episodic lung activity. Chemosensitivity to acidosis is implemented by an increase in the firing frequency of one of the pacemakers. This frequency increase leads to both a decrease in the buccal burst frequency and an increase in the lung episode frequency. The rhythmogenic properties of the model are robust against synaptic noise and pacemaker jitter. To validate the rhythm and pattern genesis of this formal CPG, neurograms were built from simulated motoneuron activity, and compared with experimental neurograms. The basic principles of our model account for several experimental observations, and we suggest that these principles may be generic for amphibian ventilation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31119525What 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.