Inhibitory Postsynaptic Potentials Participate in Intracellular and Extracellular Theta Rhythms in the Hippocampus: A Personal Narrative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis that the hippocampal theta rhythm consists of inhibitory postsynaptic potentials (IPSPs) was critical for understanding the theta rhythm. The dominant views in the early 1980s were that intracellularly recorded theta consisted of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) with little participation by IPSPs, and that IPSPs generated a closed monopolar field in the hippocampus. I (Leung) conceived of a new model for generation of the hippocampal theta rhythm, with theta-rhythmic IPSPs as an essential component, and thus sought to reinvestigate the relation between theta and IPSPs quantitatively with intracellular and extracellular recordings. The intracellular recordings were performed by Leung and Yim in the laboratory of Kris Krnjević at McGill University. Using protocols of passing steady-state holding currents and injection of chloride ions, the intracellular theta and IPSP in a CA1 neuron typically showed the same reversal potential and correlated change in amplitude. Low-intensity stimulation of the alveus evoked an antidromic action potential in CA1 neurons, identifying them as pyramidal cells with output axons in the alveus, which then activated a feedback IPSP with almost no excitatory component. Theta-rhythmic somatic inhibition, together with phase-shifted theta-rhythmic distal apical dendritic excitation were proposed as the two dipoles that generate a gradual extracellular theta phase shift in the CA1 apical dendritic layer. The distal apical excitation driven by the entorhinal cortex was proposed to be atropine-resistant and dominated during walking in rats. Other than serving a conventional role in limiting excitation, rhythmic proximal inhibition and distal dendritic excitation provide varying phasic modulation along the soma-dendritic axis of pyramidal cells, resulting in theta phase-dependent synaptic plasticity and gamma oscillations, which are likely involved in cognitive processing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".