Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Physiologically Plausible Model of Action Selection and Oscillatory Activity in the Basal Ganglia

Open access
Humphries, Mark D., Stewart, Robert D., Gurney, Kevin N.·2006·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The basal ganglia (BG) have long been implicated in both motor function and dysfunction. It has been proposed that the BG form a centralized action selection circuit, resolving conflict between multiple neural systems competing for access to the final common motor pathway. We present a new spiking neuron model of the BG circuitry to test this proposal, incorporating all major features and many physiologically plausible details. We include the following: effects of dopamine in the subthalamic nucleus (STN) and globus pallidus (GP), transmission delays between neurons, and specific distributions of synaptic inputs over dendrites. All main parameters were derived from experimental studies. We find that the BG circuitry supports motor program selection and switching, which deteriorates under dopamine-depleted and dopamine-excessive conditions in a manner consistent with some pathologies associated with those dopamine states. We also validated the model against data describing oscillatory properties of BG. We find that the same model displayed detailed features of both γ-band (30–80 Hz) and slow (∼1 Hz) oscillatory phenomena reported by Brown et al. (2002) and Magill et al. (2001), respectively. Only the parameters required to mimic experimental conditions (e.g., anesthetic) or manipulations (e.g., lesions) were changed. From the results, we derive the following novel predictions about the STN–GP feedback loop: (1) the loop is functionally decoupled by tonic dopamine under normal conditions and recoupled by dopamine depletion; (2) the loop does not show pacemaking activity under normal conditions in vivo(but does after combined dopamine depletion and cortical lesion); (3) the loop has a resonant frequency in the γ-band.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.3486-06.2006

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Humphries, M. D., Stewart, R. D., & Gurney, K. N.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2006-12-13
Volume
26
Issue
50
Pages
12921-12942
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2149661045
Cited by
370
References
10
FWCI
8.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: A Physiologically Plausible Model of Action Selection and Oscillatory Activity in the Basal Ganglia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.3486-06.2006
The paper
Humphries, M. D., Stewart, R. D., & Gurney, K. N. (2006). A Physiologically Plausible Model of Action Selection and Oscillatory Activity in the Basal Ganglia. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3486-06.2006

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.