Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies
Gamma (30-80 Hz) rhythms in hippocampus and neocortex resulting from the interaction of excitatory and inhibitory cells (E- and I-cells), called Pyramidal-Interneuronal Network Gamma (PING), require that the I-cells respond to the E-cells, but don't fire on their own. In idealized models, there...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2013-04-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fncom.2013.00033/full |
| _version_ | 1819113356727943168 |
|---|---|
| author | Christoph eBorgers Bryan eWalker |
| author_facet | Christoph eBorgers Bryan eWalker |
| author_sort | Christoph eBorgers |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Gamma (30-80 Hz) rhythms in hippocampus and neocortex resulting from the interaction of excitatory and inhibitory cells (E- and I-cells), called Pyramidal-Interneuronal Network Gamma (PING), require that the I-cells respond to the E-cells, but don't fire on their own. In idealized models, there is a sharp boundary between a parameter regime where the I-cells have weak-enough drive for PING, and one where they have so much drive that they fire without being prompted by the E-cells. In the latter regime, they often de-synchronize and suppress the E-cells; the boundary was therefore called the "suppression boundary" by Borgers and Kopell (2005). The model I-cells used in the earlier work by Borgers and Kopell have a "type 1" phase response, i.e., excitatory input always advances them. However, fast-spiking inhibitory basket cells often have a "type 2" phase response: Excitatory input arriving soon after they fire delays them. We study the effect of the phase response type on the suppression transition, under the additional assumption that the I-cells are kept synchronous by gap junctions. When many E-cells participate on a given cycle, the resulting excitation advances the I-cells on the next cycle if their phase response is of type 1, and this can result in suppression of more E-cells on the next cycle. Therefore strong E-cell spike volleys tend to be followed by weaker ones, and vice versa. This often results in erratic fluctuations in the strengths of the E-cell spike volleys. When the phase response of the I-cells is of type 2, the opposite happens: Strong E-cell spike volleys delay the inhibition on the next cycle, therefore tend to be followed by yet stronger ones. The strengths of the E-cell spike volleys don't oscillate, and there is a nearly abrupt transition from PING to ING (a rhythm involving I-cells only). |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T04:28:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-44e4579e94654cc3be5227d0074784b5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1662-5188 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T04:28:06Z |
| publishDate | 2013-04-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience |
| spelling | doaj.art-44e4579e94654cc3be5227d0074784b52022-12-21T18:39:07ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience1662-51882013-04-01710.3389/fncom.2013.0003342866Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assembliesChristoph eBorgers0Bryan eWalker1Tufts UniversityTufts UniversityGamma (30-80 Hz) rhythms in hippocampus and neocortex resulting from the interaction of excitatory and inhibitory cells (E- and I-cells), called Pyramidal-Interneuronal Network Gamma (PING), require that the I-cells respond to the E-cells, but don't fire on their own. In idealized models, there is a sharp boundary between a parameter regime where the I-cells have weak-enough drive for PING, and one where they have so much drive that they fire without being prompted by the E-cells. In the latter regime, they often de-synchronize and suppress the E-cells; the boundary was therefore called the "suppression boundary" by Borgers and Kopell (2005). The model I-cells used in the earlier work by Borgers and Kopell have a "type 1" phase response, i.e., excitatory input always advances them. However, fast-spiking inhibitory basket cells often have a "type 2" phase response: Excitatory input arriving soon after they fire delays them. We study the effect of the phase response type on the suppression transition, under the additional assumption that the I-cells are kept synchronous by gap junctions. When many E-cells participate on a given cycle, the resulting excitation advances the I-cells on the next cycle if their phase response is of type 1, and this can result in suppression of more E-cells on the next cycle. Therefore strong E-cell spike volleys tend to be followed by weaker ones, and vice versa. This often results in erratic fluctuations in the strengths of the E-cell spike volleys. When the phase response of the I-cells is of type 2, the opposite happens: Strong E-cell spike volleys delay the inhibition on the next cycle, therefore tend to be followed by yet stronger ones. The strengths of the E-cell spike volleys don't oscillate, and there is a nearly abrupt transition from PING to ING (a rhythm involving I-cells only).http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fncom.2013.00033/fullcell assemblyattentional selectiongamma oscillationtype 2 neuronfeedback inhibtion |
| spellingShingle | Christoph eBorgers Bryan eWalker Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience cell assembly attentional selection gamma oscillation type 2 neuron feedback inhibtion |
| title | Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies |
| title_full | Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies |
| title_fullStr | Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies |
| title_full_unstemmed | Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies |
| title_short | Toggling between gamma-frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies |
| title_sort | toggling between gamma frequency activity and suppression of cell assemblies |
| topic | cell assembly attentional selection gamma oscillation type 2 neuron feedback inhibtion |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fncom.2013.00033/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christopheborgers togglingbetweengammafrequencyactivityandsuppressionofcellassemblies AT bryanewalker togglingbetweengammafrequencyactivityandsuppressionofcellassemblies |