Spike Timing-Dependent Plasticity and Random Inputs Shape Interspike Interval Regularity of Model STN Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Neuronal oscillations play a key role in the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease (PD). This study investigates the effects of random synaptic inputs, their correlations, and the interaction with synaptic dynamics and spike timing-dependent plasticity (STDP) on the membrane potential and firing patterns of subthalamic nucleus (STN) neurons, both in healthy and PD-affected states. Methods: We used a modified Hodgkin–Huxley model with a Langevin stochastic framework to study how synaptic conductance, random input fluctuations, and STDP affect STN neuron firing and membrane potential, including sensitivity to refractory period and synaptic depression variability. Results: Our results show that random inputs significantly affect the firing patterns of STN neurons, both in healthy cells and those with PD under DBS treatment. STDP, along with random refractory periods and fluctuating input currents, increases the irregularity of inter-spike intervals (ISIs) in output neuron spike trains. Sensitivity analyses highlight the key role of synaptic depression and refractory period variability in shaping firing patterns. Combining random inputs with STDP boosts the correlation between neuron activities. Furthermore, at fixed input noise levels, the model’s output closely matches experimental firing rate and ISI variability data from PD patients and animals, with statistical tests confirming significant effects of STDP on firing regularity. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the stochastic dynamics of STN neurons, combined with STDP, are crucial for shaping neuronal firing patterns in both healthy and PD-affected states. These insights improve our understanding of how noise and plasticity contribute to neural function and dysfunction, with implications for PD symptom management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".