Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41879906›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2026

On hyperbolicity for nerve pulse propagation in axons.

Kert Tamm, Tanel Peets, Jüri Engelbrecht

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Kert TammDepartment of Cybernetics, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, Tallinn, 19086, Harjumaa, Estonia. kert.tamm@taltech.ee.
Tanel Peets *Department of Cybernetics, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, Tallinn, 19086, Harjumaa, Estonia.
Jüri Engelbrecht *Department of Cybernetics, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, Tallinn, 19086, Harjumaa, Estonia.

Funding

Eesti Teadusagentuur PRG1227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The classical Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) model describes the propagation of an action potential (AP) in unmyelinated axons. Here, the key difference from the classical HH model is the hypothesis that the AP propagation in axons depends not only on the HH ion mechanism but also on capacitance and inductance. The modified model is hyperbolic (wave-equation type) compared to the classical HH model, which is parabolic (diffusion-equation type). In this paper, we revisit a modification of the classical HH model proposed by Lieberstein for describing propagating AP in an unmyelinated axon, including the possible effect of inductance that might influence velocity, into the governing equation. We briefly revisit and discuss the underlying assumptions about the hypothesis of including the inductivity in the HH model, systematically check the behaviour of the solutions of the modified governing equations to make sure it is correct for describing the AP and finally discuss some aspects which are relevant for the further modifications (like, for example, taking into account the effect of myelination). The numerical simulation using the physical variables demonstrates the changes in the velocity of an AP as well as the changes in its profile. These results match well the known effects from experimental studies and prepare the basis for the further improvement of modelling the propagation of the AP taking into account the effects of the possible phenomenological inductance.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAxonsModels, NeurologicalNeural ConductionAnimalsComputer SimulationHumansAction potentialMathematical modellingNerve fibreUnmyelinated axonVelocity

Identifiers

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.