Reduced order models of myelinated axonal compartments


The paper presents a hierarchical series of computational models for myelinated axonal compartments. Three classes of models are considered, either with distributed parameters (2.5D EQS–ElectroQuasi Static, 1D TL-Transmission Lines) or with lumped parameters (0D). They are systematically analyzed with both analytical and numerical approaches, the main goal being to identify the best procedure for order reduction of each case. An appropriate error estimator is proposed in order to assess the accuracy of the models. This is the foundation of a procedure able to find the simplest reduced model having an imposed precision. The most computationally efficient model from the three geometries proved to be the analytical 1D one, which is able to have accuracy less than 0.1%. By order reduction with vector fitting, a finite model is generated with a relative difference of 10− 4 for order 5. The dynamical models thus extracted allow an efficient simulation of neurons and, consequently, of neuronal circuits. In such situations, the linear models of the myelinated compartments coupled with the dynamical, non-linear models of the Ranvier nodes, neuronal body (soma) and dendritic tree give global reduced models. In order to ease the simulation of large-scale neuronal systems, the sub-models at each level, including those of myelinated compartments should have the lowest possible order. The presented procedure is a first step in achieving simulations of neural systems with accuracy control.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22


  1. Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I.A., Romer, R.H. (1988). Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Antoulas, A.C., Sorensen, D.C., Gugercin, S. (2001). A survey of model reduction methods for large-scale systems. Contemporary Mathematics, 280, 193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bărbulescu, R., Ioan, D., Ciuprina, G. (2018). Modeling the saltatory conduction in myelinated axons by order reduction. In 2018 20th international conference on neuroinformatics and computational neuroscience (ICNCN) (pp. 2059–2062).

  4. Bărbulescu, R., Ioan, D., Ciuprina, G. (2019). Coupled macromodels for the simulation of the saltatory conduction. Scientific Bulletin Series C (under review).

  5. Bărbulescu, R., Ioan, D., Ciurea, J. (2016). Simple 1d models for neuro-signals transmission along axons. In 2016 international conference and exposition on electrical and power engineering (EPE) (pp. 313–319): IEEE.

  6. Berljafa, M., & Güttel, S. (2014). A rational Krylov toolbox for matlab.

  7. Bower, J., & Beeman, D. (1998). The Book of GENESIS: exploring realistic neural models with the GEneral NEural SImulation System. Interpretation of Music; 55. TELOS. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.

  8. Brain Facts and Figures. (2017). Accessed 14 Dec 2017.

  9. Brown, A.M., & Hamann, M. (2014). Computational modeling of the effects of auditory nerve dysmyelination. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 8.

  10. Burger, J.R. (2009). Human memory modeled with standard analog and digital circuits: inspiration for man-made computers. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Carnevale, N.T., & Hines, M.L. (2006). The NEURON book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Ciuprina, G., Villena, J.F., Ioan, D., Ilievski, Z., Kula, S., ter Maten, E.J.W., Mohaghegh, K., Pulch, R., Schilders, W.H., Silveira, L.M., et al. (2015). Parameterized model order reduction. In Coupled multiscale simulation and optimization in nanoelectronics (pp. 267–359): Springer.

  13. Clark, J., & Plonsey, R. (1966). A mathematical evaluation of the core conductor model. Biophysical Journal, 6(1), 95–112.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. De Sterck, H., & Ullrich, P. (2009). Introduction to computational pdes. Course Notes for Amath 442.

  15. Digicortex. (2017). Accessed: 2017-12-14.

  16. Elmore, W.C. (1948). The transient response of damped linear networks with particular regard to wideband amplifiers. Journal of Applied Physics, 19(1), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fitzhugh, R. (1962). Computation of impulse initiation and saltatory conduction in a myelinated nerve fiber. Biophysical Journal, 2(1), 11–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. FitzHugh, R. (1966). Mathematical models of excitation and propagation in nerve. Publisher Unknown.

  19. Frankenhaeuser, B., & Huxley, A. (1964). The action potential in the myelinated nerve fibre of xenopus laevis as computed on the basis of voltage clamp data. The Journal of Physiology, 171(2), 302–315.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ganapathy, N., & Clark, J. (1987). Extracellular currents and potentials of the active myelinated nerve fiber. Biophysical Journal, 52(5), 749–761.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goldman, L., & Albus, J.S. (1968). Computation of impulse conduction in myelinated fibers; theoretical basis of the velocity-diameter relation. Biophysical Journal, 8(5), 596–607.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gow, A., & Devaux, J. (2008). A model of tight junction function in central nervous system myelinated axons. Neuron Glia Biology, 4(4), 307–317.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Graham, B., Gillies, A., Willshaw, D. (2011). Principles of computational modelling in neuroscience.

  24. Graupner, M., & Brunel, N. (2010). Mechanisms of induction and maintenance of spike-timing dependent plasticity in biophysical synapse models. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 4.

  25. Gurney, K. (1997). An introduction to neural networks. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Gustavsen, B., & Semlyen, A. (1999). Rational approximation of frequency domain responses by vector fitting. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 14(3), 1052–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Halter, J.A., & Clark, J. W. Jr. (1991). A distributed-parameter model of the myelinated nerve fiber. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 148(3), 345–382.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Haykin, S. (1999). Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation. International edition. Prentice Hall.

  29. Heres, P.P. (2005). Robust and efficient Krylov subspace methods for model order reduction. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.

  30. Hodgkin, A.L., & Huxley, A.F. (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. The Journal of Physiology, 117(4), 500–544.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Huxley, A., & Stämpeli, R. (1949). Evidence for saltatory conduction in peripheral myelinated nerve fibres. The Journal of Physiology, 108(3), 315–339.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ioan, D. (1988). Metode pentru calculul campului electromagnetic. Separarea variabilelor. IPB.

  33. Ioan, D., Ciuprina, G., Radulescu, M., Seebacher, E. (2006). Compact modeling and fast simulation of on-chip interconnect lines. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 42(4), 547–550.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ioan, D., & Munteanu, I. (1999). Missing link rediscovered: the electromagnetic circuit element concept. JSAEM Studies in Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, 8, 302–320.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Izhikevich, E.M. (2003). Simple model of spiking neurons. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 14(6), 1569–1572.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Izhikevich, E.M. (2007). Dynamical systems in neuroscience. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Jin, J.M. (2015). The finite element method in electromagnetics. New Jersey: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Joucla, S., Glière, A., Yvert, B. (2014). Current approaches to model extracellular electrical neural microstimulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 8.

  39. Keener, J., & Sneyd, J. (2010). Mathematical physiology: I: cellular physiology. Springer Science & Business Media.

  40. Kuokkanen, P. (2012). On the origin of the extracellular potential in the nucleus laminaris of the barn owl. Ph.D. thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät I.

  41. Lindsay, K., Ogden, J., Halliday, D., Rosenberg, J. (1999). An introduction to the principles of neuronal modelling. In Modern techniques in neuroscience research (pp. 213–306): Springer.

  42. Lozier, D.W. (2003). Nist digital library of mathematical functions. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 38(1), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Maass, W. (1997). Networks of spiking neurons: the third generation of neural network models. Neural Networks, 10(9), 1659–1671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. MATLAB. (2015). Balanced model truncation via square root method. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.

  45. MATLAB. (2015). Singular value decomposition. The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.

  46. Moore, J., Ramon, F., Joyner, R. (1975). Axon voltage-clamp simulations. i. methods and tests. Biophysical Journal, 15(1), 11–24.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Moore, J.W., Joyner, R.W., Brill, M.H., Waxman, S.D., Najar-Joa, M. (1978). Simulations of conduction in uniform myelinated fibers. relative sensitivity to changes in nodal and internodal parameters. Biophysical Journal, 21(2), 147–160.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Morrison, A., Diesmann, M., Gerstner, W. (2008). Phenomenological models of synaptic plasticity based on spike timing. Biological Cybernetics, 98(6), 459–478.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Niebur, E. (2008). Neuronal cable theory. Scholarpedia, 3(5), 2674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Panzer, H. (2014). Model order reduction by Krylov subspace methods with global error bounds and automatic choice of parameters. Verlag Dr. Hut.

  51. Parasuram, H., Nair, B., D’Angelo, E., Hines, M., Naldi, G., Diwakar, S. (2016). Computational modeling of single neuron extracellular electric potentials and network local field potentials using lfpsim. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 10.

  52. Paugam-Moisy, H., & Bohte, S. (2012). Computing with spiking neuron networks. In Handbook of natural computing (pp. 335–376): Springer.

  53. Rapetti, F., & Rousseaux, G. (2014). On quasi-static models hidden in Maxwell’s equations. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 79, 92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rattay, F., Potrusil, T., Wenger, C., Wise, A.K., Glueckert, R., Schrott-Fischer, A. (2013). Impact of morphometry, myelinization and synaptic current strength on spike conduction in human and cat spiral ganglion neurons. PLoS One, 8(11), e79,256.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Robinson, P., Rennie, C., Rowe, D., O’Connor, S., Gordon, E. (2005). Multiscale brain modelling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 360(1457), 1043–1050.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Salimbahrami, B., & Lohmann, B. (2002). Krylov subspace methods in linear model order reduction: introduction and invariance properties. In Sci. Rep. Inst. of Automation. Citeseer.

  57. Simulating action potential with the Hodgkin-Huxley model. (2018). Accessed: 2018-06-10.

  58. Stephanova, D. (2001). Myelin as longitudinal conductor: a multi-layered model of the myelinated human motor nerve fibre. Biological Cybernetics, 84(4), 301–308.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Stoica, P., Moses, R.L., et al. (2005). Spectral analysis of signals Vol. 452. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Struijk, J.J., Holsheimer, J., van der Heide, G.G., Boom, H.B. (1992). Recruitment of dorsal column fibers in spinal cord stimulation: influence of collateral branching. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 39 (9), 903–912.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Timotin, A. (2004). La structure de la fibre nerveuse: Un projet optimal. Proceedings of the Romanian Academy Series A 5(1).

  62. The Nervous System. (2017). (Structure and function) (Nursing) part 1. . Accessed: 2017-12-14.

  63. Van Geit, W., De Schutter, E., Achard, P. (2008). Automated neuron model optimization techniques: a review. Biological Cybernetics, 99(4-5), 241–251.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Villapecellín-Cid, M.M., Medina, F., Roa, L.M. (2004). Internodal myelinated segments: delay and rgc time-domain green function model. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 51(2), 389–391.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Young, R. (2015). Mathematical modeling of the evolution and development of myelin. Ph.D. thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Download references


This work was supported by TD COST Action TD1307 European Model Reduction Network (EU-MORNET).

The work reported in this article was partly supported by national funds through the Portuguese “Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia” (FCT) with reference UID/CEC/50021/2019 as well as project PTDC/EEI-EEE/31140/2017.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Ioan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Action Editor: Arnd Roth

Appendix: Derivation of the analytical (2.5D) model

Appendix: Derivation of the analytical (2.5D) model

The equation div(σ gradV ) = 0, satisfied by the potential V in each homogeneous subdomain, has the following form in cylindrical coordinates:

$$ \text{div}\left( \sigma\text{grad}V\right)=\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left( r\sigma\frac{\partial V}{\partial r}\right) + \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( \sigma\frac{\partial V}{\partial x}\right) = 0, $$

where the axial symmetry of the function (i.e. independence on the azimuthal angle) was taken into account. In each homogeneous subdomain the potential V is a harmonic function, a solution of the Laplace equation. According to the separation of variables method (Ioan 1988), in each homogeneous subdomain the potential V is assumed to have the form:

$$ V(x,r)=X(x)R(r). $$

Substituting Eq. (27) in Eq. (26) it follows that the partial differential equation can be decomposed into two ordinary linear differential equations satisfied by the two functions X and R:

$$ -\frac{1}{r}\frac{(\sigma rR^{\prime})^{\prime}}{\sigma R} = \frac{X^{\prime\prime}}{X} \Rightarrow \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{X^{\prime\prime}}{X} = \lambda^{2} \\ -\frac{(\sigma rR^{\prime})'}{\sigma rR} = \lambda^{2}, \end{array}\right. $$

where λ is a positive real constant, called constant of separation.

The solution of the first equation is:

$$ X(x) = A \text{sh}(\lambda x) + B \text{ch}(\lambda x), $$

where A and B are integration constants.

In Eq. (28) σ is piecewise constant, (σ1 for 0 < r < a and σ2 for a < r < b). Therefore, on each homogeneous subdomain, the function R is the solution of the differential equation:

$$ r^{2}R^{\prime\prime} + rR^{\prime} + \lambda^{2}r^{2}R = 0, $$

which is a combination of zero order Bessel functions, with the following form for the general solution:

$$ R(r) = CJ_{0}(\lambda x) + DY_{0}(\lambda x). $$

The parameter λ and the integration constants are derived by imposing the boundary conditions:

  • on terminal 2 (x = L, 0 < r < a):

    $$ \left. \frac{\text{d} V}{\text{d} n}\right|_{x=L} = 0 \Rightarrow X(x)=B^{\prime}\text{ch}(\lambda(L-x)), $$

    V (0,x) needs to have a finite value, so in the first subdomain (0 < r < a) D has to be zero and thus:

    $$ V(r,x) = CJ_{0}(\lambda x)\text{ch}(\lambda(L-x)). $$

    After renaming the constants above, the potential has the general form:

    $$ V(r,x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} BJ_{0}(\lambda r)\text{ch}(\lambda(L-x)), & 0{<}r{<}a, \\ (CJ_{0}(\lambda r) + DY_{0}(\lambda r))\text{ch}(\lambda(L-x)), & a{<}r{<}b. \end{array}\right. $$
  • on the interface r = a:

    $$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} &&V_{1}(a,x)=V_{2}(a,x), 0<x<L \\ &&\left. \frac{\partial\underline{V_{1}}}{\partial n}\right|_{r=a} = \beta\left. \frac{\partial \underline{V_{2}}}{\partial n}\right|_{r=a}, \beta=\frac{\sigma_{2}+j\omega\varepsilon_{2}}{\sigma_{1}+j\omega\varepsilon_{1}} = \frac{\sigma_{2}}{\sigma_{1}}, \text{for } \omega=0. \end{array} $$

    It follows that:

    $$ \left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{D}{C}=\left( \frac{1-\beta}{\beta}\right)/\left( \frac{Y_{1}(\lambda a)}{J_{1}(\lambda a)} - \frac{1}{\beta}\frac{Y_{0}(\lambda a)}{J_{0}(\lambda a)}\right); \\ \frac{B}{C}=1+\frac{D}{C}\frac{Y_{0}(\lambda a)}{J_{0}(\lambda a)} = 1+\frac{(1-\beta)J_{1}(\lambda a)Y_{0}(\lambda a)}{\beta J_{0}(\lambda a)Y_{1}(\lambda a) - J_{1}(\lambda a)Y_{0}(\lambda a)}. \end{array}\right. $$
  • on the boundary r = b:

$$ V(b,x)=0, \forall x {\in} [0,L] \Rightarrow CJ_{0}(\lambda b) + DY_{0}(\lambda b) = 0. $$

This leads to the eigenvalues equation:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} &&(1-\beta)Y_{0}(\lambda b)J_{0}(\lambda a)J_{1}(\lambda a) + \\ &&J_{0}(\lambda b)(\beta Y_{1}(\lambda a)J_{0}(\lambda a) - Y_{0}(\lambda a)J_{1}(\lambda a) ) = 0, \end{array} $$

which has an infinite number of solutions λk,k = 1, 2,..., \(\infty \) and the general solution of the problem V (r,x) is obtained by superposition of all possible general forms:

$$ V(r,x){=}\left\{\begin{array}{ll} {\sum}_{k}{C_{k}\frac{B_{k}}{C_{k}}J_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r})\text{ch}(\lambda_k(L-x))}, 0<r<a \\ {\sum}_{k}{C_{k}(J_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r}) {+} \frac{D_{k}}{C_{k}}Y_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r}))\text{ch}(\lambda_k(L-x))}. \end{array}\right. $$


$$ V(r,x)={\sum}_{k}{C_{k}R(\lambda_{kr})\text{ch}(\lambda_k(L-x))} , $$

where R are eigenfunctions given by:

$$ R(\lambda_{kr})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \frac{B_{k}}{C_{k}}J_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r}), & 0<r<a \\ J_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r}) + \frac{D_{k}}{C_{k}}Y_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r}). & a<r<b \end{array}\right. $$

The constant Ck is computed by imposing the Neumann boundary condition at x = 0:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \left. \frac{\partial V}{\partial x}\right|_{x=0} &=& f(r), \\ f(r) &=& -\frac{I_{1}}{\sigma\pi a^{2}}h(a-r)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} -\frac{I_{1}}{\sigma\pi a^{2}}, & r \in (0,a) \\ 0, & r \in (a,b), \end{array}\right. \end{array} $$

where h is the Heaviside function (unit step). The function f(r) can be expanded into Fourier-Bessel series of eigenfunctions:

$$ f(r){=}{\sum}_{k=1}^{\infty}{F_{k}R(\lambda_{kr})}{=}{\sum}_{k=1}^{\infty}{C_{k}R(\lambda_{kr})\lambda_{k}\text{sh}(\lambda_{k} L)}, $$

where the Fourier coefficients Fk of this series result from the orthogonality property of the eigenfunctions:

$$ {<}R(\lambda_{j} r),R(\lambda_{k} r){>}{=}{{\int}_{0}^{b}}{r\sigma(r)R(\lambda_{j} r)R(\lambda_{k} r)}\text{d} r = 0, j \ne k $$

In EC regime and with j = k this relation becomes:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \|R_{k}\|^{2} &=& \sigma_{1} {{\int}_{0}^{a}}{r\frac{{B^{2}_{k}}}{{C^{2}_{k}}}J^{2}_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r})}\text{d} r + \\ &&\sigma_{2} {{\int}_{a}^{b}}{r(J_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r}) + \frac{D_{k}}{C_{k}}Y_{0}(\lambda_{k}{r}))^{2}}\text{d} r \Rightarrow \end{array} $$
$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} \|R_{k}\|^{2} &=& \sigma_{1} \frac{{B^{2}_{k}}}{{C^{2}_{k}}} \frac{a^{2}}{2} (J^{2}_{0}(\lambda_{k}{a}) + J^{2}_{1}(\lambda_{k}{a})) \\ &&+ \sigma_{2} \frac{1}{2} (b^{2}(J^{2}_{0}(\lambda_{k}{b}) + J^{2}_{1}(\lambda_{k}{b})) \\ &&- a^{2}(J^{2}_{0}(\lambda_{k}{a}) + J^{2}_{1}(\lambda_{k}{a}))) \\ &&+ \sigma_{2} \frac{{D^{2}_{k}}}{{C^{2}_{k}}} \frac{1}{2} (b^{2}(Y^{2}_{0}(\lambda_{k}{b}) + Y^{2}_{1}(\lambda_{k}{b})) \\&&- a^{2}(Y^{2}_{0}(\lambda_{k}{a}) + Y^{2}_{1}(\lambda_{k}{a})) ) \\ &&+ \sigma_{2} \frac{D_{k}}{C_{k}} (b^{2}(J_{0}(\lambda_{k}{b})Y_{0}(\lambda_{k}{b}) \\ &&+ J_{1}(\lambda_{k}{b})Y_{0}(\lambda_{k}{b})) - a^{2}(J_{0}(\lambda_{k}{a})Y_{0}(\lambda_{k}{a}) \\ &&+ J_{1}(\lambda_{k}{a})Y_{0}(\lambda_{k}{a}) ) ). \end{array} $$

The scalar product between R(λkr) and f(r) leads to the expression of Fk:

$$ \begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} &&<R(\lambda_{k} r),f(r)>=F_{k}\|R_{k}\|^{2} \Rightarrow \\ &&F_{k} {=} \frac{I_{1}}{\pi a^{2}\|R_{k}\|^{2}} {{\int}_{0}^{a}}rR(\lambda_{kr})\text{d} r {=} \frac{I_{1}}{\pi a\|R_{k}\|^{2}}\frac{B_{k}}{C_{k}}\frac{1}{\lambda_{k}}J_{1}(\lambda_{k}{a}).\\ \end{array} $$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ioan, D., Bărbulescu, R., Silveira, L.M. et al. Reduced order models of myelinated axonal compartments. J Comput Neurosci 47, 141–166 (2019).

Download citation


  • Neuron
  • Axon
  • Myelination
  • Dynamical model
  • Reduced order models
  • Accuracy control
  • EQS field
  • Analytical approach
  • Modal analysis
  • Numerical methods
  • FEM
  • FIT
  • BEM
  • FDM
  • Cable model
  • Neuronal circuits