Coincident excitatory and inhibitory spike-timing dependent plasticity potentiates pyramidal neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spike-timing dependent plasticity (STDP) has been demonstrated separately at both glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses, however the result of both of these synapses undergoing STDP simultaneously has not been examined. Here we investigate how simultaneous STDP of excitatory and inhibitory synapses onto CA1 pyramidal cells alters their probability and timing of spike generation, thus regulating the output of the hippocampus. Using a multi-compartment model of a CA1 pyramidal neuron with excitatory and inhibitory synapses modeled onto the proximal dendrites, we demonstrate that when these synapses are modified by positive coincident (+10 ms) spike-timing dependent rules there is an increase in both the probability of generating an action potential and a decrease in the latency from synaptic input to spiking. Modifying both excitatory and inhibitory synapses with a negative coincident (-10 ms) spike-timing rules decreases pyramidal cell spiking less than if excitatory synapses were modified alone. When excitatory and inhibitory synapses undergo positive coincident spike-timing dependent synaptic plasticity, in the presence of a theta rhythm, there is a decrease in the interval between synaptic input and spiking which advances the spike forward on the theta cycle. Thus simultaneous modification of excitatory and inhibitory synapses alters the probability of spike generation and the precision of spike-timing within the hippocampus.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".