Topology, Cross-Frequency, and Same-Frequency Band Interactions Shape the Generation of Phase-Amplitude Coupling in a Neural Mass Model of a Cortical Column
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phase-amplitude coupling (PAC), a type of cross-frequency coupling (CFC) where the phase of a low-frequency rhythm modulates the amplitude of a higher frequency, is becoming an important indicator of information transmission in the brain. However, the neurobiological mechanisms underlying its generation remain undetermined. A realistic, yet tractable computational model of the phenomenon is thus needed. Here we analyze a neural mass model of a cortical column, comprising fourteen neuronal populations distributed across four layers (L2/3, L4, L5 and L6). A control analysis showed that the conditional transfer entropy (cTE) measure is able to correctly estimate the flow of information between neuronal populations. Then, we computed cTE from the phases to the amplitudes of the oscillations generated in the cortical column. This approach provides information regarding directionality by distinguishing PAC from APC (amplitude-phase coupling), i.e. the information transfer from amplitudes to phases, and can be used to estimate other types of CFC such as amplitude-amplitude coupling (AAC) and phase-phase coupling (PPC). While experiments often only focus on one or two PAC combinations (e.g., theta-gamma or alpha-gamma), we found that a cortical column can simultaneously generate almost all possible PAC combinations, depending on connectivity parameters, time constants, and external inputs. PAC interactions with and without an anatomical equivalent (direct and indirect interactions, respectively) were analyzed. We found that the strength of PAC between two populations was strongly correlated with the strength of the effective connections between the populations and, on average, did not depend on whether the PAC connection was direct or indirect. When considering a cortical column circuit as a complex network, we found that neuronal populations making indirect PAC connections had, on average, higher local clustering coefficient, efficiency, and betweenness centrality than populations making direct connections and populations not involved in PAC connections. This suggests that their interactions were more effective when transmitting information. Since approximately 60% of the obtained interactions represented indirect connections, our results highlight the importance of the topology of cortical circuits for the generation of the PAC phenomenon. Finally, our results demonstrated that indirect PAC interactions can be explained by a cascade of direct CFC and same-frequency band interactions, suggesting that PAC analysis of experimental data should be accompanied by the estimation of other types of frequency interactions for an integrative understanding of the phenomenon.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".