Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35038010›Full record

ReviewBiological cybernetics2022

The voltage and spiking responses of subthreshold resonant neurons to structured and fluctuating inputs: persistence and loss of resonance and variability.

Rodrigo F O Pena, Horacio G Rotstein

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biological cybernetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Rodrigo F O PenaFederated Department of Biological Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University, Newark, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2037-9746
Horacio G RotsteinFederated Department of Biological Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers University, Newark, USA. horacio@njit.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4387-5160
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We systematically investigate the response of neurons to oscillatory currents and synaptic-like inputs and we extend our investigation to non-structured synaptic-like spiking inputs with more realistic distributions of presynaptic spike times. We use two types of chirp-like inputs consisting of (i) a sequence of cycles with discretely increasing frequencies over time, and (ii) a sequence having the same cycles arranged in an arbitrary order. We develop and use a number of frequency-dependent voltage response metrics to capture the different aspects of the voltage response, including the standard impedance (Z) and the peak-to-trough amplitude envelope ([Formula: see text]) profiles. We show that Z-resonant cells (cells that exhibit subthreshold resonance in response to sinusoidal inputs) also show [Formula: see text]-resonance in response to sinusoidal inputs, but generally do not (or do it very mildly) in response to square-wave and synaptic-like inputs. In the latter cases the resonant response using Z is not predictive of the preferred frequencies at which the neurons spike when the input amplitude is increased above subthreshold levels. We also show that responses to conductance-based synaptic-like inputs are attenuated as compared to the response to current-based synaptic-like inputs, thus providing an explanation to previous experimental results. These response patterns were strongly dependent on the intrinsic properties of the participating neurons, in particular whether the unperturbed Z-resonant cells had a stable node or a focus. In addition, we show that variability emerges in response to chirp-like inputs with arbitrarily ordered patterns where all signals (trials) in a given protocol have the same frequency content and the only source of uncertainty is the subset of all possible permutations of cycles chosen for a given protocol. This variability is the result of the multiple different ways in which the autonomous transient dynamics is activated across cycles in each signal (different cycle orderings) and across trials. We extend our results to include high-rate Poisson distributed current- and conductance-based synaptic inputs and compare them with similar results using additive Gaussian white noise. We show that the responses to both Poisson-distributed synaptic inputs are attenuated with respect to the responses to Gaussian white noise. For cells that exhibit oscillatory responses to Gaussian white noise (band-pass filters), the response to conductance-based synaptic inputs are low-pass filters, while the response to current-based synaptic inputs may remain band-pass filters, consistent with experimental findings. Our results shed light on the mechanisms of communication of oscillatory activity among neurons in a network via subthreshold oscillations and resonance and the generation of network resonance.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalNeuronsAction PotentialsMembrane PotentialsInformation filteringOscillationsRhythmsSinusoidal inputsSquare-wave inputsSynaptic inputs

Identifiers

PMID35038010
OpenAlexW4206280266

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.