↓ Skip to main content

Homeostatic Activity-Dependent Tuning of Recurrent Networks for Robust Propagation of Activity

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Homeostatic Activity-Dependent Tuning of Recurrent Networks for Robust Propagation of Activity
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.2511-15.2016
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Developing neuronal networks display spontaneous bursts of action potentials that are necessary for circuit organization and tuning. While spontaneous activity has been shown to instruct map formation in sensory circuits, it is unknown whether it plays a role in the organization of motor networks that produce rhythmic output. Using computational modeling, we investigate how recurrent networks of excitatory and inhibitory neuronal populations assemble to produce robust patterns of unidirectional and precisely timed propagating activity during organism locomotion. One example is provided by the motor network inDrosophilalarvae, which generates propagating peristaltic waves of muscle contractions during crawling. We examine two activity-dependent models, which tune weak network connectivity based on spontaneous activity patterns: a Hebbian model, where coincident activity in neighboring populations strengthens connections between them; and a homeostatic model, where connections are homeostatically regulated to maintain a constant level of excitatory activity based on spontaneous input. The homeostatic model successfully tunes network connectivity to generate robust activity patterns with appropriate timing relationships between neighboring populations. These timing relationships can be modulated by the properties of spontaneous activity, suggesting its instructive role for generating functional variability in network output. In contrast, the Hebbian model fails to produce the tight timing relationships between neighboring populations required for unidirectional activity propagation, even when additional assumptions are imposed to constrain synaptic growth. These results argue that homeostatic mechanisms are more likely than Hebbian mechanisms to tune weak connectivity based on spontaneous input in a recurrent network for rhythm generation and robust activity propagation. How are neural circuits organized and tuned to maintain stable function and produce robust output? This task is especially difficult during development, when circuit properties change in response to variable environments and internal states. Many developing circuits exhibit spontaneous activity, but its role in the synaptic organization of motor networks that produce rhythmic output is unknown. We studied a model motor network, that when appropriately tuned, generates propagating activity as during crawling inDrosophilalarvae. Based on experimental evidence of activity-dependent tuning of connectivity, we examined plausible mechanisms by which appropriate connectivity emerges. Our results suggest that activity-dependent homeostatic mechanisms are better suited than Hebbian mechanisms for organizing motor network connectivity, and highlight an important difference from sensory areas.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 24%
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 22 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 20%
Physics and Astronomy 6 8%
Computer Science 5 7%
Mathematics 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 12 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
#11,242,644
of 34,400,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#12,213
of 23,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,482
of 338,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#179
of 291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,400,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 338,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 291 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.