4.4 Article

First-spike latency in Hodgkin's three classes of neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 328, 期 -, 页码 19-25

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.03.003

关键词

Morris-Lecar neuron model; Neuron classification; Neural coding scheme; Temporal coding

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [10975063, 11275084]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [lzujbky-2012-17]
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-11-0206]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the first-spike latency (FSL) in Hodgkin's three classes of neurons with the Morris-Lecar neuron model. It is found that all the three classes of neurons can encode an external stimulus into FSLs. With DC inputs, the FSLs of all of the neurons decrease with input intensity. With input current decreased to the threshold, class 1 neurons show an arbitrary long FSL whereas class 2 and 3 neurons exhibit the short-limit FSLs. When the input current is sinusoidal, the amplitude, frequency and initial phase can be encoded by all the three classes of neurons. The FSLs of all of the neurons decrease with the input amplitude and frequency. When the input frequency is too high, all of the neurons respond with infinite FSLs. When the initial phase increases, the FSL decreases and then jumps to a maximal value and finally decreases linearly. With changes in the input parameters, the FSLs of the class 1 and 2 neurons exhibit similar properties. However, the FSL of the class 3 neurons became slightly longer and only produces responses for a narrow range of initial phase if input frequencies are low. Moreover, our results also show that the FSL and firing rate responses are mutually independent processes and that neurons can encode an external stimulus into different FSLs and firing rates simultaneously. This finding is consistent with the current theory of dual or multiple complementary coding mechanisms. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据