↓ Skip to main content

Criteria on Balance, Stability, and Excitability in Cortical Networks for Constraining Computational Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Criteria on Balance, Stability, and Excitability in Cortical Networks for Constraining Computational Models
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2018.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrei Maksimov, Markus Diesmann, Sacha J. van Albada

Abstract

During ongoing and Up state activity, cortical circuits manifest a set of dynamical features that are conserved across these states. The present work systematizes these phenomena by three notions: excitability, the ability to sustain activity without external input; balance, precise coordination of excitatory and inhibitory neuronal inputs; and stability, maintenance of activity at a steady level. Slice preparations exhibiting Up states demonstrate that balanced activity can be maintained by small local circuits. While computational models of cortical circuits have included different combinations of excitability, balance, and stability, they have done so without a systematic quantitative comparison with experimental data. Our study provides quantitative criteria for this purpose, by analyzing in-vitro and in-vivo neuronal activity and characterizing the dynamics on the neuronal and population levels. The criteria are defined with a tolerance that allows for differences between experiments, yet are sufficient to capture commonalities between persistently depolarized cortical network states and to help validate computational models of cortex. As test cases for the derived set of criteria, we analyze three widely used models of cortical circuits and find that each model possesses some of the experimentally observed features, but none satisfies all criteria simultaneously, showing that the criteria are able to identify weak spots in computational models. The criteria described here form a starting point for the systematic validation of cortical neuronal network models, which will help improve the reliability of future models, and render them better building blocks for larger models of the brain.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 25%
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 13 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Physics and Astronomy 4 11%
Computer Science 3 8%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,918,019
of 23,075,872 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#617
of 1,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,864
of 326,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#25
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,075,872 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 326,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.