↓ Skip to main content

Potential Mechanisms and Functions of Intermittent Neural Synchronization

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Potential Mechanisms and Functions of Intermittent Neural Synchronization
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2017.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sungwoo Ahn, Leonid L. Rubchinsky

Abstract

Neural synchronization is believed to play an important role in different brain functions. Synchrony in cortical and subcortical circuits is frequently variable in time and not perfect. Few long intervals of desynchronized dynamics may be functionally different from many short desynchronized intervals although the average synchrony may be the same. Recent analysis of imperfect synchrony in different neural systems reported one common feature: neural oscillations may go out of synchrony frequently, but primarily for a short time interval. This study explores potential mechanisms and functional advantages of this short desynchronizations dynamics using computational neuroscience techniques. We show that short desynchronizations are exhibited in coupled neurons if their delayed rectifier potassium current has relatively large values of the voltage-dependent activation time-constant. The delayed activation of potassium current is associated with generation of quickly-rising action potential. This "spikiness" is a very general property of neurons. This may explain why very different neural systems exhibit short desynchronization dynamics. We also show how the distribution of desynchronization durations may be independent of the synchronization strength. Finally, we show that short desynchronization dynamics requires weaker synaptic input to reach a pre-set synchrony level. Thus, this dynamics allows for efficient regulation of synchrony and may promote efficient formation of synchronous neural assemblies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 27%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 4 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 6 27%
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 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,462,982
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#869
of 1,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,644
of 316,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#32
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 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 1,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 316,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.