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.

Synchronization (see www.izhikevich.com) 505Figure 10.44: Nancy Kopell <strong>in</strong> her Boston University office <strong>in</strong> 1990 (photograph providedby Dr. Kopell).As a result, we avoided the annoy<strong>in</strong>g terms 2π/T and 2π/Ω <strong>in</strong> the formulae. The onlydrawback is that some of the results may have an “unfamiliar look”, such as s<strong>in</strong> 2 ϑ withϑ ∈ [0, π] for the PRC of Class 1 neurons, as opposed to 1 − cos ϑ with ϑ ∈ [0, 2π] usedby many authors before.Hansel, Mato, and Meunier (1995) were the first to notice that the shape of PRCdeterm<strong>in</strong>es the synchronization properties of synaptically coupled oscillators. Ermentrout(1996) related this result to the classification of oscillators and proved that PRCsof all Class 1 oscillators have the form of 1−cos ϑ, though the proof can be found <strong>in</strong> hisearlier papers with Kopell (Ermentrout and Kopell 1986a,b). Reyes and Fetz (1993)measured PRC of a cat neocortical neuron and largely confirmed the theoretical predictions.The experimental method <strong>in</strong> Sect. 10.2.4 is related to that of Rosenblum andPikovsky (2001). It needs to be developed further, e.g., by <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g the measurementuncerta<strong>in</strong>ty (error bars). In fact, most experimentally obta<strong>in</strong>ed PRCs, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>gthe one <strong>in</strong> Fig. 10.24, are so noisy that noth<strong>in</strong>g useful could be derived from them.This issue is the subject of active research.Our treatment of the FTM theory follows closely that of Somers and Kopell (1993,1995). Anti-phase synchronization of relaxation oscillators is analyzed us<strong>in</strong>g phasemodels by Izhikevich (2000) and FTM theory by Kopell and Somers (1995). Ermentrout(1994) and Izhikevich (1998) considered weakly coupled oscillators with axonalconduction delays and showed that delays result <strong>in</strong> mere phase shifts (see Ex. 18).Frankel and Kiemel (1993) observed that slow coupl<strong>in</strong>g can be reduced to weak coupl<strong>in</strong>g.Izhikevich and Hoppensteadt (2003) used Malk<strong>in</strong>’s theorem to extend the resultsto slowly coupled networks, and to derive useful formulae for the coupl<strong>in</strong>g functions andcoefficients. Ermentrout (2003) showed that the result could be generalized to synapseshav<strong>in</strong>g fast-ris<strong>in</strong>g and slow-decay<strong>in</strong>g conductances. Goel and Ermentrout (2002) and

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!