4.7 Article

Long anisotropic absolute refractory periods with rapid rise times to reliable responsiveness

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 105, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.105.014401

关键词

-

资金

  1. TELEM grant of the Council for Higher Education of Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Refractoriness, a fundamental property of excitable elements such as neurons, is measured in neuronal cultures and found to have an average anisotropic absolute refractory period (RP) exceeding 10 ms. The refractory period is an order of magnitude longer than expected and comparable to the decay of membrane potential. Extracellular stimulation results in longer absolute refractory periods than intracellular stimulation, and different stimulation routes exhibit distinct refractory periods.
Refractoriness is a fundamental property of excitable elements, such as neurons, indicating the probability for re-excitation in a given time lag, and is typically linked to the neuronal hyperpolarization following an evoked spike. Here we measured the refractory periods (RPs) in neuronal cultures and observed that an average anisotropic absolute RP could exceed 10 ms and its tail is 20 ms, independent of a large stimulation frequency range. It is an order of magnitude longer than anticipated and comparable with the decaying membrane potential time scale. It is followed by a sharp rise-time (relative RP) of merely similar to 1 md to complete responsiveness. Extracellular stimulations result in longer absolute RPs than solely intracellular ones, and a pair of extracellular stimulations from two different routes exhibits distinct absolute RPs, depending on their order. Our results indicate that a neuron is an accurate excitable element, where the diverse RPs cannot be attributed solely to the soma and imply fast mutual interactions between different stimulation routes and dendrites. Further elucidation of neuronal computational capabilities and their interplay with adaptation mechanisms is warranted.

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

4.7
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