ArticlePhysical review. E2024
Neuromodulatory effects on synchrony and network reorganization in networks of coupled Kuramoto oscillators.
Article in Physical review. E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neuromodulatory processes in the brain can critically change signal processing on a cellular level, leading to dramatic changes in network level reorganization. Here, we use coupled nonidentical Kuramoto oscillators to investigate how changes in the shape of phase response curves from Type 1 to Type 2, mediated by varying ACh levels, coupled with activity-dependent plasticity may alter network reorganization. We first show that, when plasticity is absent, the Type 1 networks with symmetric adjacency matrix, as expected, exhibit asynchronous dynamics with oscillators of the highest natural frequency robustly evolving faster in terms of their phase dynamics. However, interestingly, Type 1 networks with an asymmetric connectivity matrix can produce stable synchrony (so-called splay states) with complex phase relationships. At the same time, Type 2 networks synchronize independent of the symmetry of their connectivity matrix, with oscillators locked so that those with higher natural frequency have a constant phase lead as compared to those with lower natural frequency. This relationship establishes a robust mapping between the frequency and oscillators' phases in the network, leading to structure and frequency mapping when plasticity is present. Finally, we show that biologically realistic, phase-locking dependent, connection plasticity naturally produces splay states in Type 1 networks that do not display the structure-frequency reorganization observed in synchronized Type II networks. These results indicate that the formation of splay states in the brain could be a common phenomenon.
Identifiers
What 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.