2018
DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.121.054101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inferring Network Connectivity from Event Timing Patterns

Abstract: Reconstructing network connectivity from the collective dynamics of a system typically requires access to its complete continuous-time evolution, although these are often experimentally inaccessible. Here we propose a theory for revealing physical connectivity of networked systems only from the event time series their intrinsic collective dynamics generate. Representing the patterns of event timings in an event space spanned by interevent and cross-event intervals, we reveal which other units directly influenc… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is an intended focus of future work. Indeed, the inference of the connectivity of spiking neural networks from their activity is an active area of research [77,78] which includes recently proposed continuous-time approaches [79,80]. However, any conditional independence test will suffer from the curse of dimensionality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is an intended focus of future work. Indeed, the inference of the connectivity of spiking neural networks from their activity is an active area of research [77,78] which includes recently proposed continuous-time approaches [79,80]. However, any conditional independence test will suffer from the curse of dimensionality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the methods presented here are likely to be useful for large-scale detection of putative synaptic connections, modeling the cross-correlogram directly does not necessarily provide unambiguous evidence for or against the presence of a synapse. Other detection methods have used other spike statistics (Casadiego et al 2018;Chen et al 2011;Ito et al 2011;Kadirvelu et al 2017;Ladenbauer et al 2019;Monasson and Cocco 2011;Song et al 2013), and the shape of the cross-correlogram can be influenced by many other factors, such as the dynamics of the presynaptic neuron (Perkel et al 1967b) and common input from unobserved neurons (Gerstein et al 1989;Stevenson et al 2008). Here we exclude the neuron pairs when there is a peak or trough in the cross-correlogram at t=0 to remove the potentially problematic connections, and expect our slow basis functions can act to model the common inputs if they occur on slow timescales (~10 ms).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternative approaches to infer connectivity from spike trains, other than those addressed above, have employed models of sparsely and linearly interacting point processes 83 , or have been designed in a model-free manner 51,84,85 , for example, using CCGs 51,84 similarly to our comparisons. A general challenge in subsampled networks arises from pairwise spike train correlations at small time lags generated by shared connections from unobserved neurons, regardless of whether a direct connection is present.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%