Skip to main content
Log in

On dependency properties of the ISIs generated by a two-compartmental neuronal model

Biological Cybernetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One-dimensional leaky integrate and fire neuronal models describe interspike intervals (ISIs) of a neuron as a renewal process and disregarding the neuron geometry. Many multi-compartment models account for the geometrical features of the neuron but are too complex for their mathematical tractability. Leaky integrate and fire two-compartment models seem a good compromise between mathematical tractability and an improved realism. They indeed allow to relax the renewal hypothesis, typical of one-dimensional models, without introducing too strong mathematical difficulties. Here, we pursue the analysis of the two-compartment model studied by Lansky and Rodriguez (Phys D 132:267–286, 1999), aiming of introducing some specific mathematical results used together with simulation techniques. With the aid of these methods, we investigate dependency properties of ISIs for different values of the model parameters. We show that an increase of the input increases the strength of the dependence between successive ISIs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benedetto E, Sacerdote L, Zucca C (2013) A first passage problem for a bivariate diffusion process: numerical solution with an application to neuroscience. J comput Appl Math 242:41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressloff PC (1995) Dynamics of a compartmental integrate-and-fire neuron without dendritic potential reset. Phys D 80:399–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkitt AN (2006a) A review of the integrate and fire neuron model: I. Homogeneous synaptic input. Biol Cybern 95:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkitt AN (2006b) A review of the integrate and fire neuron model: II. Inhomogeneous synaptic input and network properties. Biol Cybern 95:97–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bush PC, Sejnowski TJ (1993) Reduced compartmental models of neocortical pyramidal cells. J Neurosci Method 46:159–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter E, Bower JM (1994) An active membrane model of the cerebellar Purkinje cell. J Neurophysiol 71:375–400

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ditlevsen S, Greenwood P (2012) The Morris–Lecar neuron model embeds a leaky integrate-and-fire model. J math Biol. doi:10.1007/s00285-012-0552-7

  • Ferguson KA, Campbell SA (2009) A two compartment model of a CA1 pyramidal neuron. Can Appl Math Q 17(2):293–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks GA, Nelsen RB (2007) On the relationship between Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau for pairs of continuous random variables. J Stat Plan Inference 137(7):2143–2150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folland GB (1999) Real analysis: modern techniques and their applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraudo MT, Greenwood P, Sacerdote L (2011) How sample paths of leaky integrate-and-fir models are influenced by the presence of a firing threshold. Neural Comput 23(7):1743–1767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey K (1983) Compartmental models and their application. Academic Press, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall MG (1938) A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30(1/2):81–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn AF (1989) Dendritic transformations on random synaptic inputs as measured from a neuron’s spike train: modeling and simulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 36:44–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lansky P, Rodriguez R (1999) Two-compartment stochastic model of a neuron. Phys D 132:267–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lansky P, Rospars JP (1993) Stochastic model neuron without resetting of dendritic potential. Application to the olfactory system. Biol Cybern 69:283–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lansky P, Rospars JP (1995) Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model neuron revisited. Biol Cybern 72:397–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lansky P, Ditlevsen S (2008) A review of the methods for signal estimation in stochastic diffusion leaky integrate-and-fire neuronal models. Biol Cybern 99:253–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mino H, Grill WM (2000) Modeling of mammalian myelinated nerve with stochastic sodium ionic channels. In: Engineering in medicine and biology society, Proceedings of the 22nd annual international conference of the IEEE, vol 2, pp 915–917.

  • Nawrot MP (2010) Analysis and interpretation of interval and count variability in neural spike trains. In: Gruen S, Rotter S (eds) Analysis of parallel spike trains. Springer, New York, pp 37–58

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelsen RB (1999) An introduction to copulas. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi LM, Sacerdote L (1979) The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process as a model for neuronal activity. Biol Cybern 35:1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sacerdote L, Giraudo MT (2012) Leaky integrate and fire models: a review on mathematicals methods and their applications. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2058. Springer, pp 95–142

  • Shinomoto S, Shima K, Tanji J (2003) Differences in spiking patterns among cortical neurons. Neural Comput 15:2823–2842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shinomoto S, Kim H, Shimokawa T, Matsuno N, Funahashi S, Shima K, Fujita I, Tamura H, Doi T, Kawano K, Inaba N, Fukushima K, Kurkin S, Kurata K, Taira M, Tsutsui K, Komatsu H, Ogawa T, Koida K, Tanji J, Toyama K (2009) Relating neuronal firing patterns to functional differentiation of cerebral cortex. PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000433

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklar A (1959) Functions de repartition a n dimensions et leurs marges, vol 8. Publications of the Institute of Statistics of the University of Paris, Paris, pp 229–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Traub RD, Wong RKS, Miles R, Michelson H (1973) A model of a CA3 hippocampal pyramidal neuron incorporating voltage-clamp data on intrinsic conductances. J Neurophysiol 66(2): 635–650 (1991). Kybernetika 9(6):449–460

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by MIUR Project PRIN-Cofin 2008. The authors are grateful to Petr Lansky for useful suggestions and to the anonymous referees for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Benedetto.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 A.1 Proof of Eq. (13)

When \(X_{2}^{B}(\tau )\approx X_2(\tau )\), \(\tau \in (t_{i-1},t_{i}) \), with \(t_{i-1}\) and \(t_i\) firing times, Eq. (12) becomes

$$\begin{aligned} X_2(t_i)-X_2(t_{i-1})&= -(\alpha +\alpha _r)\int \limits _{t_{i-1}}^{t_i}X_2(t)\mathrm{d}t\nonumber \\&+\alpha _r\int \limits _{t_{i-1}}^{t_i}X_1(t)\mathrm{d}t. \end{aligned}$$
(24)

Since \(X_2(t_i)=S\) and \(X_2(t_{i-1}^+)=0\), Eq. (24) can be rewritten as

$$\begin{aligned} S=-(\alpha +\alpha _r)\int \limits _{t_{i-1}}^{t_i}X_2(t)\mathrm{d}t+\alpha _r\int \limits _{t_{i-1}}^{t_i}X_1(t)\mathrm{d}t. \end{aligned}$$
(25)

Taking the expectation of each member of (25) and applying Fubini’s theorem (cf.Folland 1999), we get

$$\begin{aligned} S=-(\alpha +\alpha _r)\left[\int \limits _{t_{i-1}}^{t_i}m_2(t)\mathrm{d}t\right]+\alpha _r\left[\int \limits _{t_{i-1}}^{t_i}m_1(t)\mathrm{d}t\right]. \end{aligned}$$
(26)

Now, considering the expressions (2a) and (2b) with initial condition \(m_2(t_{i-1})=0\) and \(m_1(t_{i-1})=M_{i-1}\), we have

$$\begin{aligned} m_1(t)=&m_1(\infty )+ \frac{1}{2}\left(M_{i-1}-\frac{\mu }{\alpha }\right) \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t}\nonumber \\&+\frac{1}{2}\left(M_{i-1}-\frac{\mu }{\alpha +2\alpha _r}\right) \mathrm{e}^{-(\alpha +2 \alpha _r) t}\end{aligned}$$
(27)
$$\begin{aligned} m_2(t)=&m_2(\infty )+ \frac{1}{2}\left(M_{i-1}-\frac{\mu }{\alpha }\right) \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha t}\nonumber \\&+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\mu }{\alpha +2\alpha _r}-M_{i-1}\right) \mathrm{e}^{-(\alpha +2\alpha _r) t} \end{aligned}$$
(28)

Finally, replacing (27) and (28) into (26), we get the following equation for the \(i\)th ISI, \(i\ge 2\)

$$\begin{aligned} 2(S-m_2(\infty ))&= \left\{ M_{i-1}-\frac{\mu }{\alpha }\right\} \mathrm{e}^{-\alpha T_i}\nonumber \\&+\left\{ \frac{\mu }{\alpha +2\alpha _r}-M_{i-1}\right\} \mathrm{e}^{-(\alpha +2\alpha _r)T_i}. \end{aligned}$$
(29)

1.2 A.2 The bivariate copula

Copulas are mathematical objects increasingly used to describe the joint behaviour of random vectors. We introduce here only the material necessary for this paper while we refer to Nelsen (1999) for a detailed introduction.

A bivariate copula is the joint cumulative distribution function of a bivariate random vector \((U,V)\) on the unit square \([0,1]\times [0,1]\) with uniform marginals:

$$\begin{aligned} C(u,v)=\mathbb P (U\le u, V\le v). \end{aligned}$$

If \(F_1(x_1)\) and \(F_2(x_2)\) are the marginal distribution functions of the random variables \(X_1\) and \(X_2\), then

$$\begin{aligned} C(F_1(x_1),F_2(x_2))=F(x_1,x_2) \end{aligned}$$
(30)

defines a bivariate distribution function with marginals \(F_1(x_1)\) and \(F_2(x_2)\). Sklar (1959) established also that the converse is true. Indeed he proved that any bivariate distribution function \(F\) can be written in the form (30). Moreover, if the marginal distributions are continuous, the copula representation (30) is unique.

Copulas separate the study of dependency properties from the study of marginals. On the contrary, this two features are mixed in the joint distribution. Moreover, copulas are invariant under increasing and continuous transformations, i.e. they are scale free.

There exist different types of copulas, corresponding to different dependency structures. One example is the Gaussian copula associated to a multivariate normal distribution. It is constructed by projecting a bivariate normal distribution on the unit square \([0,1]^2\). For a given \(2\times 2\) correlation matrix \(\Sigma \), the Gaussian copula is

$$\begin{aligned} C_\Sigma (u,v)=\phi _\Sigma \left(\phi ^{-1}(u),\phi ^{-1}(v)\right). \end{aligned}$$

Here \(\phi ^{-1}\) denotes the inverse cumulative distribution function of a standard normal and \(\phi _\Sigma \) is the joint cumulative distribution function of a bivariate normal distribution with mean vector zero and covariance matrix equal to \(\Sigma \).

Note that if in (30) one uses a Gaussian copula and non Gaussian marginal distributions, the joint distribution is not a bivariate normal distribution.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benedetto, E., Sacerdote, L. On dependency properties of the ISIs generated by a two-compartmental neuronal model. Biol Cybern 107, 95–106 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-012-0536-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-012-0536-0

Keywords

Navigation