Dynamics of Gamma Bursts in Local Field Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this letter, we provide a stochastic analysis of, and supporting simulation data for, a stochastic model of the generation of gamma bursts in local field potential (LFP) recordings by interacting populations of excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Our interest is in behavior near a fixed point of the stochastic dynamics of the model. We apply a recent limit theorem of stochastic dynamics to probe into details of this local behavior, obtaining several new results. We show that the stochastic model can be written in terms of a rotation multiplied by a two-dimensional standard Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process. Viewing the rewritten process in terms of phase and amplitude processes, we are able to proceed further in analysis. We demonstrate that gamma bursts arise in the model as excursions of the modulus of the OU process. The associated pair of stochastic phase and amplitude processes satisfies their own pair of stochastic differential equations, which indicates that large phase slips occur between gamma bursts. This behavior is mirrored in LFP data simulated from the original model. These results suggest that the rewritten model is a valid representation of the behavior near the fixed point for a wide class of models of oscillatory neural processes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".