Noise-induced synchrony of two-neuron motifs with asymmetric noise and uneven coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronous dynamics play a pivotal role in various cognitive processes. Previous studies extensively investigate noise-induced synchrony in coupled neural oscillators, with a focus on scenarios featuring uniform noise and equal coupling strengths between neurons. However, real-world or experimental settings frequently exhibit heterogeneity, including deviations from uniformity in coupling and noise patterns. This study investigates noise-induced synchrony in a pair of coupled excitable neurons operating in a heterogeneous environment, where both noise intensity and coupling strength can vary independently. Each neuron is an excitable oscillator, represented by the normal form of Hopf bifurcation (HB). In the absence of stimulus, these neurons remain quiescent but can be triggered by perturbations, such as noise. Typically, noise and coupling exert opposing influences on neural dynamics, with noise diminishing coherence and coupling promoting synchrony. Our results illustrate the ability of asymmetric noise to induce synchronization in such coupled neural oscillators, with synchronization becoming increasingly pronounced as the system approaches the excitation threshold (i.e., HB). Additionally, we find that uneven coupling strengths and noise asymmetries are factors that can promote in-phase synchrony. Notably, we identify an optimal synchronization state when the absolute difference in coupling strengths is maximized, regardless of the specific coupling strengths chosen. Furthermore, we establish a robust relationship between coupling asymmetry and the noise intensity required to maximize synchronization. Specifically, when one oscillator (receiver neuron) receives a strong input from the other oscillator (source neuron) and the source neuron receives significantly weaker or no input from the receiver neuron, synchrony is maximized when the noise applied to the receiver neuron is much weaker than that applied to the source neuron. These findings reveal the significant connection between uneven coupling and asymmetric noise in coupled neuronal oscillators, shedding light on the enhanced propensity for in-phase synchronization in two-neuron motifs with one-way connections compared to those with two-way connections. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the functional roles of network motifs that may serve within neuronal dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".