| Title |
Measuring spike timing distance in the Hindmarsh–Rose neurons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Neurodynamics, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11571-017-9466-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jinjie Zhu, Xianbin Liu |
| Abstract |
In the present paper, a simple spike timing distance is defined which can be used to measure the degree of synchronization with the information only encoded in the precise timing of the spike trains. Via calculating the spike timing distance defined in this paper, the spike train similarity of uncoupled Hindmarsh-Rose neurons in bursting or spiking states with different initial conditions is investigated and the results are compared with other spike train distance measures. Later, the spike timing distance measure is applied to study the synchronization of coupled or common noise-stimulated neurons. Counterintuitively, the addition of weak coupling or common noise doesn't enhance the degree of synchronization although after critical values, both of them can induce complete synchronizations. More interestingly, the common noise plays opposite roles for weak and strong enough couplings. Finally, it should be noted that the measure defined in this paper can be extended to measure large neuronal ensembles and the lag synchronization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 3 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 9% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 55% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,581,651
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Neurodynamics
#193
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,047
of 442,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Neurodynamics
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.