Spiking neurons, dopamine, and plasticity: Timing is everything, but concentration also matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While both dopamine (DA) fluctuations and spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) are known to influence long-term corticostriatal plasticity, little attention has been devoted to the interaction between these two fundamental mechanisms. Here, a theoretical framework is proposed to account for experimental results specifying the role of presynaptic activation, postsynaptic activation, and concentrations of extracellular DA in synaptic plasticity. Our starting point was an explicitly-implemented multiplicative rule linking STDP to Michaelis-Menton equations that models the dynamics of extracellular DA fluctuations. This rule captures a wide range of results on conditions leading to long-term potentiation and depression in simulations that manipulate the frequency of induced corticostriatal stimulation and DA release. A well-documented biphasic function relating DA concentrations to synaptic plasticity emerges naturally from simulations involving a multiplicative rule linking DA and neural activity. This biphasic function is found consistently across different neural coding schemes employed (voltage-based vs. spike-based models). By comparison, an additive rule fails to capture these results. The proposed framework is the first to generate testable predictions on the dual influence of DA concentrations and STDP on long-term plasticity, suggesting a way in which the biphasic influence of DA concentrations can modulate the direction and magnitude of change induced by STDP, and raising the possibility that DA concentrations may inverse the LTP/LTD components of the STDP rule.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".