Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34539363›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2021

Why Firing Rate Distributions Are Important for Understanding Spinal Central Pattern Generators.

Henrik Lindén, Rune W Berg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

2 authors.

Henrik LindénDepartment of Neuroscience, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rune W BergDepartment of Neuroscience, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Networks in the spinal cord, which are responsible for the generation of rhythmic movements, commonly known as central pattern generators (CPGs), have remained elusive for decades. Although it is well-known that many spinal neurons are rhythmically active, little attention has been given to the distribution of firing rates across the population. Here, we argue that firing rate distributions can provide an important clue to the organization of the CPGs. The data that can be gleaned from the sparse literature indicate a firing rate distribution, which is skewed toward zero with a long tail, akin to a normal distribution on a log-scale, i.e., a "log-normal" distribution. Importantly, such a shape is difficult to unite with the widespread assumption of modules composed of recurrently connected excitatory neurons. Spinal modules with recurrent excitation has the propensity to quickly escalate their firing rate and reach the maximum, hence equalizing the spiking activity across the population. The population distribution of firing rates hence would consist of a narrow peak near the maximum. This is incompatible with experiments, that show wide distributions and a peak close to zero. A way to resolve this puzzle is to include recurrent inhibition internally in each CPG modules. Hence, we investigate the impact of recurrent inhibition in a model and find that the firing rate distributions are closer to the experimentally observed. We therefore propose that recurrent inhibition is a crucial element in motor circuits, and suggest that future models of motor circuits should include recurrent inhibition as a mandatory element.

Indexed as

balanced networkcentral pattern generationfiring rate distributionlognormalmotor controlspinal cord

Identifiers

PMID34539363
PMCPMC8446347

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.