Frequency preference in two-dimensional neural models: a linear analysis of the interaction between resonant and amplifying currents
- 425 Downloads
Many neuron types exhibit preferred frequency responses in their voltage amplitude (resonance) or phase shift to subthreshold oscillatory currents, but the effect of biophysical parameters on these properties is not well understood. We propose a general framework to analyze the role of different ionic currents and their interactions in shaping the properties of impedance amplitude and phase in linearized biophysical models and demonstrate this approach in a two-dimensional linear model with two effective conductances g L and g 1. We compute the key attributes of impedance and phase (resonance frequency and amplitude, zero-phase frequency, selectivity, etc.) in the g L − g 1 parameter space. Using these attribute diagrams we identify two basic mechanisms for the generation of resonance: an increase in the resonance amplitude as g 1 increases while the overall impedance is decreased, and an increase in the maximal impedance, without any change in the input resistance, as the ionic current time constant increases. We use the attribute diagrams to analyze resonance and phase of the linearization of two biophysical models that include resonant (I h or slow potassium) and amplifying currents (persistent sodium). In the absence of amplifying currents, the two models behave similarly as the conductances of the resonant currents is increased whereas, with the amplifying current present, the two models have qualitatively opposite responses. This work provides a general method for decoding the effect of biophysical parameters on linear membrane resonance and phase by tracking trajectories, parametrized by the relevant biophysical parameter, in pre-constructed attribute diagrams.
KeywordsResonance Subthreshold oscillations Zero phase frequency Impedance Model neuron
The authors thank Diana Martinez and David Fox for their comments on this manuscript.
Supported by NSF DMS1313861 (HGR) and NIH MH060605, NS083319 (FN).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Erchova, I., Kreck, G., Heinemann, U., & Herz, A. V. M. (2004). Dynamics of rat entorhinal cortex layer II and III cells: Characteristics of membrane potential resonance at rest predict oscillation properties near threshold. Journal of Physiology, 560, 89–110.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lampl, I., & Yarom, Y. (1997). Subthreshold oscillations and resonant behaviour: Two manifestations of the same mechanism. Neuron, 78, 325–341.Google Scholar
- Ledoux, E., & Brunel, N. (2011). Dynamics of networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons in response to time-dependent inputs. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, 1–17.Google Scholar
- Moca, V. V., Nicolic, D., Singer, W., Muresan, R. (2012). Membrane resonance enables stable robust gamma oscillations. Cerebral Cortex, Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
- Rinzel, J., & Ermentrout, G. B. (1998). Analysis of neural excitability and oscillations. In C. Koch & I. Segev (Eds.), Methods in neural modeling (2nd ed., pp. 251–292). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Schmitz, D., Gloveli, T., Behr, J., Dugladze, T., & Heinemann, U. (1998). Subthreshold membrane potential oscillations in neurons of deep layers of the entorhinal cortex. Neuron, 85, 999–1004.Google Scholar
- Stark, E., Eichler, R., Roux, L., Fujisawa, S., Rotstein, H. G., Buzsáki, G. (2013). Inhibitioninduced theta resonance in cortical circuits. Neuron, In Press.Google Scholar
- Tohidi, V., & Nadim, F. (2009). Membrane resonance in bursting pacemaker neurons of an oscillatory network is correlated with network frequency. Journal of Neuroscience, 6427, 6435.Google Scholar