Patterns of synchronization in 2D networks of inhibitory neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural firing in many inhibitory networks displays synchronous assembly or clustered firing, in which subsets of neurons fire synchronously, and these subsets may vary with different inputs to, or states of, the network. Most prior analytical and computational modeling of such networks has focused on 1D networks or 2D networks with symmetry (often circular symmetry). Here, we consider a 2D discrete network model on a general torus, where neurons are coupled to two or more nearest neighbors in three directions (horizontal, vertical, and diagonal), and allow different coupling strengths in all directions. Using phase model analysis, we establish conditions for the stability of different patterns of clustered firing behavior in the network. We then apply our results to study how variation of network connectivity and the presence of heterogeneous coupling strengths influence which patterns are stable. We confirm and supplement our results with numerical simulations of biophysical inhibitory neural network models. Our work shows that 2D networks may exhibit clustered firing behavior that cannot be predicted as a simple generalization of a 1D network, and that heterogeneity of coupling can be an important factor in determining which patterns are stable.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".