12.07.2015 Views

Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience:

Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience:

Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience:

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Excitability 247AResonant for BResonant for C12 ms 18 msPeriod12 msB2 mVCPeriod18 ms2 mV20 mVFigure 7.23: Selective communication via bursts: Neuron A sends bursts of spikes toneurons B and C that have different natural periods (12 ms and 18 ms, respectively;both are simulations of the Hodgk<strong>in</strong>-Huxley model). As a result of chang<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>terspikefrequency, neuron A can selectively affect either B or C without chang<strong>in</strong>g theefficacy of synapses. Modified from Izhikevich (2002).case, the most optimal <strong>in</strong>put is a resonant burst with a slowly decreas<strong>in</strong>g (adapt<strong>in</strong>g)<strong>in</strong>terspike frequency. We will see many examples of such bursts <strong>in</strong> Chap. 9.The fact that resonator neurons prefer <strong>in</strong>puts with “resonant” frequencies is not<strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g by itself. What makes it <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g is the observation that the same <strong>in</strong>putcan be resonant for one neuron and non-resonant for another, depend<strong>in</strong>g on theirnatural periods. For example, <strong>in</strong> Fig. 7.23 neurons B and C have different periods ofsubthreshold oscillations: 12 and 18 ms, respectively. By send<strong>in</strong>g a burst of spikeswith <strong>in</strong>terspike <strong>in</strong>terval of 12 ms, neuron A can elicit a response <strong>in</strong> neuron B, butnot <strong>in</strong> C. Similarly, the burst with <strong>in</strong>terspike <strong>in</strong>terval of 18 ms elicits a response <strong>in</strong>neuron C, but not <strong>in</strong> B. Thus, neuron A can selectively affect either neuron B or Cby merely chang<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>tra-burst frequency without chang<strong>in</strong>g the efficacy of synapticconnections. In contrast, <strong>in</strong>tegrators do not have this property.7.2.3 Frequency preference <strong>in</strong> vivoFigure 7.20 and 7.21 demonstrate conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly the essence of frequency preference andresonance phenomenon <strong>in</strong> vitro, i.e., when the neuron is quiescent and “wait<strong>in</strong>g” forthe resonant burst to come. What if the neuron is under a constant bombardment ofsynaptic <strong>in</strong>put, as it happens <strong>in</strong> vivo, fir<strong>in</strong>g 10 or so spikes per second; Would it beable to tell the difference between the resonant and non-resonant <strong>in</strong>puts?To address this question, we performed a frozen-noise experiment pioneered byBryant and Segundo (1976) and depicted <strong>in</strong> Fig. 7.24. We generated a noisy signal

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!