2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0925-2312(01)00480-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coefficient of variation vs. mean interspike interval curves: What do they tell us about the brain?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All effects were reversible. *p Ͻ 0.01; **p Ͻ 0.0001. the more variable the bursting (Christodoulou and Bugmann, 2001). The average CV of the interburst intervals was 0.43 Ϯ 0.03 (n ϭ 72 cells; range, 0.08 -0.93).…”
Section: Frequency and Regularity Of Burstingmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…All effects were reversible. *p Ͻ 0.01; **p Ͻ 0.0001. the more variable the bursting (Christodoulou and Bugmann, 2001). The average CV of the interburst intervals was 0.43 Ϯ 0.03 (n ϭ 72 cells; range, 0.08 -0.93).…”
Section: Frequency and Regularity Of Burstingmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, comparing the results obtained for the gIF3 model with the behavior observed for the gIF1 and gIF2 model (see Figure 5, gIF1 and gIF2), both the incorporation of the state-dependent PSP amplitude and the effect of the reversal potential on the PSP amplitude are necessary conditions to reproduce the discharge statistics of the biophysical model. In order to fully reproduce the spontaneous discharge statistics seen in experiments (e.g., Smith & Smith, 1965;Noda & Adey, 1970;Burns & Webb, 1976;Softky & Koch, 1993;Stevens & Zador, 1998b), the high irregularity should also stem from a Poisson process; that is, the spike trains must be both exponentially distributed according to a gamma distribution and independent (Christodoulou & Bugmann, 2001;. Notes: For all models, the synaptic input rates for excitation and inhibition (ν e and ν i , respectively) were chosen to yield an output rate ν out of about 13 Hz, a high discharge variability C V around 1 (except for cLIF and vLIF), and in the conductance-based models (BM, PME, gIF1, gIF2, gIF3) a total input conductance about five times larger than the leak conductance and comparable to the leak conductance of the vLIF model.…”
Section: Response Dynamics Of Gif Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…
AbstractIn this paper, we demonstrate that the high firing irregularity produced by the leaky integrate-and-fire neuron with the partial somatic reset mechanism, which has been shown to be the most likely candidate to reflect the mechanism used in the brain for reproducing the highly irregular cortical neuron firing at high rates (Bugmann, Christodoulou & Taylor, 1997;Christodoulou & Bugmann, 2001), enhances learning. More specifically, it enhances reward-modulated Spike Timing-Dependent Plasticity with eligibility trace when used in spiking neural networks, as shown by the results when tested in the simple benchmark problem of XOR as well as in a complex multiagent setting task.
…”
mentioning
confidence: 91%
“…They also showed that the Leaky Integrate-and-Fire (LIF) neuron model, which temporally integrates excitatory postsynaptic potentials generated by independent stochastic input spike trains, failed in reproducing this observed high firing irregularity. While many methods were proposed to reproduce Softky and Koch's findings (for a brief review, see Christodoulou & Bugmann, 2000, 2001, we have shown that a LIF neuron model with partial somatic reset is a very good candidate for reproducing the observed highly irregular firing at high rates by cortical neurons (Bugmann, Christodoulou & Taylor, 1997;Christodoulou & Bugmann, 2001). In this paper, we are investigating whether the high firing irregularity produced by LIF neurons with the partial somatic reset mechanism, when used in spiking neural networks in the benchmark problem of XOR and in a general-sum game, enhances reward-modulated Spike Timing-Dependent Plasticity (STDP) with eligibility trace (Florian, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%