Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 822

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Simulation of networks of spiking neurons: A review of tools and strategies

Open access
Brette, Romain, Rudolph, Michelle, Carnevale, Ted, Hines, Michael, Beeman, David, Bower, James M., Diesmann, Markus, Morrison, Abigail, Goodman, Philip H., Harris, Frederick C., Zirpe, Milind, Natschläger, Thomas, Pecevski, Dejan, Ermentrout, Bard, Djurfeldt, Mikael, Lansner, Anders, Rochel, Olivier, Vieville, Thierry, Muller, Eilif, Davison, Andrew P., El Boustani, Sami, Destexhe, Alain·2007·Journal of Computational Neuroscience

Abstract

We review different aspects of the simulation of spiking neural networks. We start by reviewing the different types of simulation strategies and algorithms that are currently implemented. We next review the precision of those simulation strategies, in particular in cases where plasticity depends on the exact timing of the spikes. We overview different simulators and simulation environments presently available (restricted to those freely available, open source and documented). For each simulation tool, its advantages and pitfalls are reviewed, with an aim to allow the reader to identify which simulator is appropriate for a given task. Finally, we provide a series of benchmark simulations of different types of networks of spiking neurons, including Hodgkin–Huxley type, integrate-and-fire models, interacting with current-based or conductance-based synapses, using clock-driven or event-driven integration strategies. The same set of models are implemented on the different simulators, and the codes are made available. The ultimate goal of this review is to provide a resource to facilitate identifying the appropriate integration strategy and simulation tool to use for a given modeling problem related to spiking neural networks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10827-007-0038-6

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 822

Metadata

Authors
Brette, R., Rudolph, M., Carnevale, T., Hines, M., Beeman, D., Bower, J. M., Diesmann, M., Morrison, A., Goodman, P. H., Harris, F. C., Zirpe, M., Natschläger, T., Pecevski, D., Ermentrout, B., Djurfeldt, M., Lansner, A., Rochel, O., Vieville, T., Muller, E., Davison, A. P., El Boustani, S., & Destexhe, A.
Venue
Journal of Computational Neuroscience
Published
2007-07-12
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
349-398
ISSN
  • 0929-5313 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6873
OpenAlex
W2043679829
Cited by
822
References
8
FWCI
19.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simulation of networks of spiking neurons: A review of tools and strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10827-007-0038-6
The paper
Brette, R., Rudolph, M., Carnevale, T., Hines, M., Beeman, D., Bower, J. M., Diesmann, M., Morrison, A., Goodman, P. H., Harris, F. C., Zirpe, M., Natschläger, T., Pecevski, D., Ermentrout, B., Djurfeldt, M., Lansner, A., Rochel, O., Vieville, T., Muller, E., . . . Destexhe, A. (2007). Simulation of networks of spiking neurons: A review of tools and strategies. Journal of Computational Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-007-0038-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.