Pre- and postsynaptically expressed spiking-timing-dependent plasticity contribute differentially to neuronal learning
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract A plethora of experimental studies have shown that long-term plasticity can be expressed pre- or postsynaptically depending on a range of factors such as developmental stage, synapse type, and activity patterns. The functional consequences of this diversity are unknown. However, in models of neuronal learning, long-term synaptic plasticity is implemented as changes in connective weights. Whereas postsynaptic expression of plasticity predominantly affects synaptic response amplitude, presynaptic expression alters both synaptic response amplitude and short-term dynamics. In other words, the consideration of long-term plasticity as a fixed change in amplitude corresponds more closely to post- than to presynaptic expression, which means theoretical outcomes based on this choice of implementation may have a postsynaptic bias. To explore the functional implications of the diversity of expression of long-term synaptic plasticity, we modelled spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) such that it was expressed either pre- or postsynaptically, or both. We tested pair-based standard STDP models and a biologically tuned triplet STDP model, and investigated the outcome in a feed-forward setting, with two different learning schemes: either inputs were triggered at different latencies, or a subset of inputs were temporally correlated. Across different STDP models and learning paradigms, we found that presynaptic changes adjusted the speed of learning, while postsynaptic expression was better at regulating spike timing and frequency. When combining both expression loci, postsynaptic changes amplified the response range, while presynaptic plasticity maintained control over postsynaptic firing rates, potentially providing a form of activity homeostasis. Our findings highlight how the seemingly innocuous choice of implementing synaptic plasticity by direct weight modification may unwittingly introduce a postsynaptic bias in modelling outcomes. We conclude that pre- and postsynaptically expressed plasticity are not interchangeable, but enable complimentary functions. Author summary Differences between functional properties of pre- or postsynaptically expressed long-term plasticity have not yet been explored in much detail. In this paper, we used minimalist models of STDP with different expression loci, in search of fundamental functional consequences. Presynaptic expression acts mostly on neurotransmitter release, thereby altering short-term synaptic dynamics, whereas postsynaptic expression affects mainly synaptic gain. We compared cases where plasticity was expressed presynaptically, postsynaptically, or both. We found that postsynaptic plasticity was more effective at changing response times, while both pre- and postsynaptic plasticity were similarly capable of detecting correlated inputs. A model with biologically tuned expression of plasticity also achieved this separation over a range of frequencies without the need of external competitive mechanisms. Postsynaptic spiking frequency was not directly affected by presynaptic plasticity of short-term plasticity alone, however in combination with a postsynaptic component, it helped restrain positive feedback, contributing to activity homeostasis. In conclusion, expression locus may determine distinct coding schemes while also keeping activity within bounds. Our findings highlight the importance of correctly implementing expression of plasticity in modelling, since the locus of expression may affect functional outcomes in simulations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle