Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36397822›Full record

ArticleAIP advances2022

Analytic modeling of neural tissue: II. Nonlinear membrane dynamics.

B L Schwartz, S M Brown, J Muthuswamy, R J Sadleir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIP advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

S M BrownSchool of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, 699 S Mill Avenue, Tempe, Arizona 85281-3636, USA.
J MuthuswamySchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, 501 E Tyler Mall, Tempe, Arizona 85287-9709, USA.
R J SadleirSchool of Biological and Health Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, 501 E Tyler Mall, Tempe, Arizona 85287-9709, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational modeling of neuroactivity plays a central role in our effort to understand brain dynamics in the advancements of neural engineering such as deep brain stimulation, neuroprosthetics, and magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography. However, analytic solutions do not capture the fundamental nonlinear behavior of an action potential. What is needed is a method that is not constrained to only linearized models of neural tissue. Therefore, the objective of this study is to establish a robust, straightforward process for modeling neurodynamic phenomena, which preserves their nonlinear features. To address this, we turn to decomposition methods from homotopy analysis, which have emerged in recent decades as powerful tools for solving nonlinear differential equations. We solve the nonlinear ordinary differential equations of three landmark models of neural conduction-Ermentrout-Kopell, FitzHugh-Nagumo, and Hindmarsh-Rose models-using George Adomian's decomposition method. For each variable, we construct a power series solution equivalent to a generalized Taylor series expanded about a function. The first term of the decomposition series comes from the models' initial conditions. All subsequent terms are recursively determined from the first. We show rapid convergence, achieving a maximal error of

Identifiers

PMID36397822
PMCPMC9665963

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.