Cell-type-specific contributions to theta-gamma coupled rhythms in the hippocampus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct inhibitory cell types participate in cognitively relevant nested brain rhythms, and particular changes in such rhythms are known to occur in disease states. Specifically, the coexpression of theta and gamma rhythms in the hippocampus is believed to represent a general coding scheme, but cellular-based generation mechanisms for these coupled rhythms are currently unclear. We develop a population rate model of the CA1 hippocampus that encompasses circuits of three inhibitory cell types (bistratified cells and parvalbumin [PV]-expressing and cholecystokinin [CCK]-expressing basket cells) and pyramidal cells to examine this. We constrain parameters and perform numerical and theoretical analyses. The theory, in combination with the numerical explorations, predicts circuit motifs and specific cell-type mechanisms that are essential for the coexistence of theta and gamma oscillations. We find that CCK-expressing basket cells initiate the coupled rhythms and regularize theta, and PV-expressing basket cells enhance both theta and gamma rhythms. Pyramidal and bistratified cells govern the generation of theta rhythms, and PV-expressing basket and pyramidal cells play dominant roles in controlling theta frequencies. Our circuit motifs for the theta-gamma coupled rhythm generation could be applicable to other brain regions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".