Near Poisson-type firing produced by concurrent excitation and inhibition.

Chris Christodoulou*, Guido Bugmann

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The effect of inhibition on the firing variability is examined in this paper using the biologically-inspired temporal noisy-leaky integrator (TNLI) neuron model. The TNLI incorporates hyperpolarising inhibition with negative current pulses of controlled shapes and it also separates dendritic from somatic integration. The firing variability is observed by looking at the coefficient of variation (C(V)) (standard deviation/mean interspike interval) as a function of the mean interspike interval of firing (delta tM) and by comparing the results with the theoretical curve for random spike trains, as well as looking at the interspike interval (ISI) histogram distributions. The results show that with 80% inhibition, firing at high rates (up to 200 Hz) is nearly consistent with a Poisson-type variability, which complies with the analysis of cortical neuron firing recordings by Softky and Koch [1993, J. Neurosci. 13(1) 334-530]. We also demonstrate that the mechanism by which inhibition increases the C(V) values is by introducing more short intervals in the firing pattern as indicated by a small initial hump at the beginning of the ISI histogram distribution. The use of stochastic inputs and the separation of the dendritic and somatic integration which we model in TNLI, also affect the high firing, near Poisson-type (explained in the paper) variability produced. We have also found that partial dendritic reset increases slightly the firing variability especially at short ISIs.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)41-48
Number of pages0
JournalBioSystems
Volume58
Issue number0
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2000

Keywords

  • Neurons
  • Poisson Distribution

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Near Poisson-type firing produced by concurrent excitation and inhibition.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this