eLife Assessment: A dynamical computational model of theta generation in hippocampal circuits to study theta-gamma oscillations during neurostimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurostimulation of the hippocampal formation has shown promising results for modulating memory but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. In particular, the effects on hippocampal theta-nested gamma oscillations and theta phase reset, which are both crucial for memory processes, are unknown. Moreover, these effects cannot be investigated using current computational models, which consider theta oscillations with a fixed amplitude and phase velocity. Here, we developed a novel computational model that includes the medial septum, represented as a set of abstract Kuramoto oscillators producing a dynamical theta rhythm with phase reset, and the hippocampal formation, composed of biophysically-realistic neurons and able to generate theta-nested gamma oscillations under theta drive. We showed that, for theta inputs just below the threshold to induce self-sustained theta-nested gamma oscillations, a single stimulation pulse could switch the network behavior from non-oscillatory to a state producing sustained oscillations. Next, we demonstrated that, for a weaker theta input, pulse train stimulation at the theta frequency could transiently restore seemingly physiological oscillations. Importantly, the presence of phase reset influenced whether these two effects depended on the phase at which stimulation onset was delivered, which has practical implications for designing neurostimulation protocols that are triggered by the phase of ongoing theta oscillations. This novel model opens new avenues for studying the effects of neurostimulation on the hippocampal formation. Furthermore, our hybrid approach that combines different levels of abstraction could be extended in future work to other neural circuits that produce dynamical brain rhythms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".