↓ Skip to main content

On conductance-based neural field models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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.
Title
On conductance-based neural field models
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2013.00158
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitris A. Pinotsis, Marco Leite, Karl J. Friston

Abstract

This technical note introduces a conductance-based neural field model that combines biologically realistic synaptic dynamics-based on transmembrane currents-with neural field equations, describing the propagation of spikes over the cortical surface. This model allows for fairly realistic inter-and intra-laminar intrinsic connections that underlie spatiotemporal neuronal dynamics. We focus on the response functions of expected neuronal states (such as depolarization) that generate observed electrophysiological signals (like LFP recordings and EEG). These response functions characterize the model's transfer functions and implicit spectral responses to (uncorrelated) input. Our main finding is that both the evoked responses (impulse response functions) and induced responses (transfer functions) show qualitative differences depending upon whether one uses a neural mass or field model. Furthermore, there are differences between the equivalent convolution and conductance models. Overall, all models reproduce a characteristic increase in frequency, when inhibition was increased by increasing the rate constants of inhibitory populations. However, convolution and conductance-based models showed qualitatively different changes in power, with convolution models showing decreases with increasing inhibition, while conductance models show the opposite effect. These differences suggest that conductance based field models may be important in empirical studies of cortical gain control or pharmacological manipulations.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 107 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 22%
Researcher 23 20%
Student > Master 10 9%
Professor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 17 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 29 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 13%
Psychology 11 10%
Engineering 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 22 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 03 November 2021.
All research outputs
#3,585,219
of 24,323,543 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#173
of 1,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,596
of 289,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#17
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,323,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 289,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.