↓ Skip to main content

Asymmetry Factors Shaping Regular and Irregular Bursting Rhythms in Central Pattern Generators

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Asymmetry Factors Shaping Regular and Irregular Bursting Rhythms in Central Pattern Generators
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2017.00009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Irene Elices, Pablo Varona

Abstract

Central Pattern Generator (CPG) circuits are neural networks that generate rhythmic motor patterns. These circuits are typically built of half-center oscillator subcircuits with reciprocally inhibitory connections. Another common property in many CPGs is the remarkable rich spiking-bursting dynamics of their constituent cells, which balance robustness and flexibility to generate their joint coordinated rhythms. In this paper, we use conductance-based models and realistic connection topologies inspired by the crustacean pyloric CPG to address the study of asymmetry factors shaping CPG bursting rhythms. In particular, we assess the role of asymmetric maximal synaptic conductances, time constants and gap-junction connectivity to establish the regularity of half-center oscillator based CPGs. We map and characterize the synaptic parameter space that lead to regular and irregular bursting activity in these networks. The analysis indicates that asymmetric configurations display robust regular rhythms and that large regions of both regular and irregular but coordinated rhythms exist as a function of the asymmetry in the circuit. Our results show that asymmetry both in the maximal conductances and in the temporal dynamics of mutually inhibitory neurons can synergistically contribute to shape wide regimes of regular spiking-bursting activity in CPGs. Finally, we discuss how a closed-loop protocol driven by a regularity goal can be used to find and characterize regular regimes when there is not time to perform an exhaustive search, as in most experimental studies.

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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 22%
Engineering 6 22%
Computer Science 3 11%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 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 21 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,876,644
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#958
of 1,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,072
of 307,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 307,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.