↓ Skip to main content

Synchrony can destabilize reward-sensitive networks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neural Circuits, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
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.
Title
Synchrony can destabilize reward-sensitive networks
Published in
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncir.2014.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Chary, Ehud Kaplan

Abstract

When exposed to rewarding stimuli, only some animals develop persistent craving. Others are resilient and do not. How the activity of neural populations relates to the development of persistent craving behavior is not fully understood. Previous computational studies suggest that synchrony helps a network embed certain patterns of activity, although the role of synchrony in reward-dependent learning has been less studied. Increased synchrony has been reported as a marker for both susceptibility and resilience to developing persistent craving. Here we use computational simulations to study the effect of reward salience on the ability of synchronous input to embed a new pattern of activity into a neural population. Our main finding is that weak stimulus-reward correlations can facilitate the short-term repetition of a pattern of neural activity, while blocking long-term embedding of that pattern. Interestingly, synchrony did not have this dual effect on all patterns, which suggests that synchrony is more effective at embedding some patterns of activity than others. Our results demonstrate that synchrony can have opposing effects in networks sensitive to the correlation structure of their inputs, in this case the correlation between stimulus and reward. This work contributes to an understanding of the interplay between synchrony and reward-dependent plasticity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 9%
Switzerland 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Japan 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 17 74%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 30%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Other 1 4%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 22%
Neuroscience 4 17%
Computer Science 2 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Psychology 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#777
of 1,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,940
of 227,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#12
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 227,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.