Combining Theory, Model, and Experiment to Explain How Intrinsic Theta Rhythms Are Generated in an <i>In Vitro</i> Whole Hippocampus Preparation without Oscillatory Inputs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scientists have observed local field potential theta rhythms (3–12 Hz) in the hippocampus for decades, but understanding the mechanisms underlying their generation is complicated by their diversity in pharmacological and frequency profiles. In addition, interactions with other brain structures and oscillatory drives to the hippocampus during distinct brain states has made it difficult to identify hippocampus-specific properties directly involved in theta generation. To overcome this, we develop cellular-based network models using a whole hippocampus in vitro preparation that spontaneously generates theta rhythms. Building on theoretical and computational analyses, we find that spike frequency adaptation and postinhibitory rebound constitute a basis for theta generation in large, minimally connected CA1 pyramidal (PYR) cell network models with fast-firing parvalbumin-positive (PV + ) inhibitory cells. Sparse firing of PYR cells and large excitatory currents onto PV + cells are present as in experiments. The particular theta frequency is more controlled by PYR-to-PV + cell interactions rather than PV + -to-PYR cell interactions. We identify two scenarios by which theta rhythms can emerge, and they can be differentiated by the ratio of excitatory to inhibitory currents to PV + cells, but not to PYR cells. Only one of the scenarios is consistent with data from the whole hippocampus preparation, which leads to the prediction that the connection probability from PV + to PYR cells needs to be larger than from PYR to PV + cells. Our models can serve as a platform on which to build and develop an understanding of in vivo theta generation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".