MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241146674 · doi:10.1101/450825

Pre- and postsynaptically expressed spiking-timing-dependent plasticity contribute differentially to neuronal learning

2018· preprint· en· W4241146674 on OpenAlexafffund
Beatriz Eymi Pimentel Mizusaki, Sally Li, Rui Ponte Costa, P. Jesper Sjöström

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsPostsynaptic potentialNeuroscienceNonsynaptic plasticitySynaptic plasticityMetaplasticitySpike-timing-dependent plasticityHomeostatic plasticityPlasticitySynaptic scalingBiologySynapseNeuroplasticityHomosynaptic plasticityInhibitory postsynaptic potentialSynaptic augmentationExcitatory postsynaptic potentialPhysicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A plethora of experimental studies have shown that long-term plasticity can be expressed pre- or postsynaptically depending on a range of factors such as developmental stage, synapse type, and activity patterns. The functional consequences of this diversity are unknown. However, in models of neuronal learning, long-term synaptic plasticity is implemented as changes in connective weights. Whereas postsynaptic expression of plasticity predominantly affects synaptic response amplitude, presynaptic expression alters both synaptic response amplitude and short-term dynamics. In other words, the consideration of long-term plasticity as a fixed change in amplitude corresponds more closely to post- than to presynaptic expression, which means theoretical outcomes based on this choice of implementation may have a postsynaptic bias. To explore the functional implications of the diversity of expression of long-term synaptic plasticity, we modelled spike-timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) such that it was expressed either pre- or postsynaptically, or both. We tested pair-based standard STDP models and a biologically tuned triplet STDP model, and investigated the outcome in a feed-forward setting, with two different learning schemes: either inputs were triggered at different latencies, or a subset of inputs were temporally correlated. Across different STDP models and learning paradigms, we found that presynaptic changes adjusted the speed of learning, while postsynaptic expression was better at regulating spike timing and frequency. When combining both expression loci, postsynaptic changes amplified the response range, while presynaptic plasticity maintained control over postsynaptic firing rates, potentially providing a form of activity homeostasis. Our findings highlight how the seemingly innocuous choice of implementing synaptic plasticity by direct weight modification may unwittingly introduce a postsynaptic bias in modelling outcomes. We conclude that pre- and postsynaptically expressed plasticity are not interchangeable, but enable complimentary functions. Author summary Differences between functional properties of pre- or postsynaptically expressed long-term plasticity have not yet been explored in much detail. In this paper, we used minimalist models of STDP with different expression loci, in search of fundamental functional consequences. Presynaptic expression acts mostly on neurotransmitter release, thereby altering short-term synaptic dynamics, whereas postsynaptic expression affects mainly synaptic gain. We compared cases where plasticity was expressed presynaptically, postsynaptically, or both. We found that postsynaptic plasticity was more effective at changing response times, while both pre- and postsynaptic plasticity were similarly capable of detecting correlated inputs. A model with biologically tuned expression of plasticity also achieved this separation over a range of frequencies without the need of external competitive mechanisms. Postsynaptic spiking frequency was not directly affected by presynaptic plasticity of short-term plasticity alone, however in combination with a postsynaptic component, it helped restrain positive feedback, contributing to activity homeostasis. In conclusion, expression locus may determine distinct coding schemes while also keeping activity within bounds. Our findings highlight the importance of correctly implementing expression of plasticity in modelling, since the locus of expression may affect functional outcomes in simulations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207