12.07.2015 Views

Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience:

Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience:

Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience:

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Simple Models 281• Well-def<strong>in</strong>ed threshold. A stereotypical spike is fired as soon as V = E thresh ,leav<strong>in</strong>g no room for any ambiguity (see though Ex. 1).• Relative refractory period. When E K < E leak , then neuron is less excitable rightafter the spike.• Dist<strong>in</strong>ction between excitation and <strong>in</strong>hibition. Excitatory <strong>in</strong>puts (I > 0) br<strong>in</strong>gthe membrane potential closer to the threshold and hence facilitate fir<strong>in</strong>g, while<strong>in</strong>hibitory <strong>in</strong>puts (I < 0) do the opposite.• Class 1 excitability. The neuron can cont<strong>in</strong>uously encode the strength of an <strong>in</strong>put<strong>in</strong>to the frequency of spik<strong>in</strong>g.In summary, the neuron seems to be a good model for an <strong>in</strong>tegrator.However, a closer look reveals that the <strong>in</strong>tegrate-and-fire neuron has flaws. Thetransition from rest<strong>in</strong>g to repetitive spik<strong>in</strong>g occurs neither via saddle-node nor viaAndronov-Hopf bifurcation, but via some other weird type of a bifurcation that canbe observed only <strong>in</strong> piece-wise cont<strong>in</strong>uous systems. As a result, the F-I curve has logarithmicscal<strong>in</strong>g and not the expected square-root scal<strong>in</strong>g of a typical Class 1 excitablesystem (see though Ex. 6.19). The <strong>in</strong>tegrate-and-fire model cannot have spike latencyto a transient <strong>in</strong>put because superthreshold stimuli evoke immediate spikes withoutany delays (compare with Fig. 8.8(I)). In addition, the model has some weird mathematicalproperties, such as non-uniqueness of solutions, as we show <strong>in</strong> Ex. 1. F<strong>in</strong>ally,the <strong>in</strong>tegrate-and-fire model is not a spik<strong>in</strong>g model: Technically, it did not fire a spike<strong>in</strong> Fig. 8.1, it was only “said to fire a spike”, which was added manually afterwards tofool the reader.Despite all these drawbacks, the <strong>in</strong>tegrate-and-fire model is an acceptable sacrificefor a mathematician who wants to prove theorems and derive analytical expressions.However, us<strong>in</strong>g this model might be a waste of time for a computational neuroscientistwho wants to simulate large-scale networks. At the end of this section we presentalternative models that are as computationally efficient as the <strong>in</strong>tegrate-and-fire neuron,yet as biophysically plausible as Hodgk<strong>in</strong>-Huxley-type models.8.1.2 Resonate-and-fireThe resonate-and-fire model is a two-dimensional extension of the <strong>in</strong>tegrate-and-firemodel that <strong>in</strong>corporates an additional low-threshold persistent K + current or h-current,or any other resonant current that is partially activated at rest. Let W denote themagnitude of such a current. In the l<strong>in</strong>ear approximation, the conductance-basedequations describ<strong>in</strong>g neuronal dynamics can be written <strong>in</strong> the formC ˙V = I − g leak (V − E leak ) − W ,Ẇ = (V − V 1/2 )/k − W .known as Young (1937) model (see also eq. 2-1 <strong>in</strong> FitzHugh 1969). Whenever themembrane potential reaches the threshold value, V thresh , the neurons is said to fire a

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!