The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dynamics of Membrane Excitability Determine Interspike Interval Variability: A Link Between Spike Generation Mechanisms and Cortical Spike Train Statistics
Abstract
We propose a biophysical mechanism for the high interspike interval variability observed in cortical spike trains. The key lies in the nonlinear dynamics of cortical spike generation, which are consistent with type I membranes where saddle-node dynamics underlie excitability (Rinzel & Ermentrout, 1989). We present a canonical model for type I membranes, the θ-neuron. The θ-neuron is a phase model whose dynamics reflect salient features of type I membranes. This model generates spike trains with coefficient of variation (CV) above 0.6 when brought to firing by noisy inputs. This happens because the timing of spikes for a type I excitable cell is exquisitely sensitive to the amplitude of the suprathreshold stimulus pulses. A noisy input current, giving random amplitude “kicks” to the cell, evokes highly irregular firing across a wide range of firing rates; an intrinsically oscillating cell gives regular spike trains. We corroborate the results with simulations of the Morris-Lecar (M-L) neural model with random synaptic inputs: type I M-L yields high CVs. When this model is modified to have type II dynamics (periodicity arises via a Hopf bifurcation), however, it gives regular spike trains (CV below 0.3). Our results suggest that the high CV values such as those observed in cortical spike trains are an intrinsic characteristic of type I membranes driven to firing by “random” inputs. In contrast, neural oscillators or neurons exhibiting type II excitability should produce regular spike trains.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Type I membranes, phase resetting curves, and synchrony
Ermentrout, B. (1996) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1996.8.5.979 · Cited by 1,001
Self-citationNeuronal Networks of the Hippocampus
Traub, R. D., & Miles, R. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511895401 · Cited by 802
Cited by
A Review of the Integrate-and-fire Neuron Model: I. Homogeneous Synaptic Input
Burkitt, A. N. (2006) · Biological Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/s00422-006-0068-6 · Cited by 1,208
Neuronal Reward and Decision Signals: From Theories to Data
Schultz, W. (2015) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00023.2014 · Cited by 1,126
Phase-response curves and synchronized neural networks
Smeal, R. M., Ermentrout, G. B., & White, J. A. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0292 · Cited by 198
Lundstrom, B. N., Famulare, M., Sorensen, L. B., Spain, W. J., & Fairhall, A. L. (2009) · Journal of Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.1007/s10827-009-0142-x · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Gutkin, B. S., & Ermentrout, G. B.
- Venue
- Neural Computation
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1998-07-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1047-1065
- ISSN
- 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-888X
- OpenAlex
- W2160645575
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Dynamics of Membrane Excitability Determine Interspike Interval Variability: A Link Between Spike Generation Mechanisms and Cortical Spike Train Statistics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/089976698300017331
- The paper
- Gutkin, B. S., & Ermentrout, G. B. (1998). Dynamics of Membrane Excitability Determine Interspike Interval Variability: A Link Between Spike Generation Mechanisms and Cortical Spike Train Statistics. Neural Computation. https://doi.org/10.1162/089976698300017331
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.