Spiking Neurons and Synaptic Stimuli: Neural Response Comparison Using Coincidence-Factor

  • Mayur Sarangdhar
  • Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 39)

In this chapter, neural responses are generated by changing the Inter-Spike-Interval (ISI) of the stimulus. These responses are subsequently compared and a coincidence factor is obtained. Coincidence-factor, a measure of similarity, is expected to generate a high value for higher similarity and a low value for dissimilarity. It is observed that these coincidence-factors do not have a consistent trend over a simulation time window. Also, the lower-bound limit for faithful behaviour of coincidence factor shifts towards the right with the increase in the reference ISI of the stimulus. In principle, if two responses have a very high similarity, then their respective stimuli should be very similar and could possibly be considered the same. However, as results show, two spike trains generated by highly-varying stimuli have a high coincidence-factor. This is due to limitations imposed by the one-dimensional comparison of coincidence-factor.


Spiking Neuron Synaptic Stimuli Neural Response Coincidence-Factor Inter-Spike-Interval 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lundström I (1974). Mechanical wave propagation on nerve axons. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 45: 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abbott L F, Kepler T B (1990). Model neurons: From Hodgkin Huxley to Hopfield. Statistical Mechanics of Neural Networks, Edited by Garrido L, pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hasegawa H (2000). Responses of a Hodgkin-Huxley neuron to various types of spike-train inputs. Physical Review E, 61(1): 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kepecs A, Lisman J (2003). Information encoding and computation with spikes and bursts. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 14: 103–118.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fourcaud-Trocmé N, Hansel D, van Vreeswijk C, Brunel N (2003). How spike generation mechanisms determine the neuronal response to fluctuating inputs. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(37): 11628–11640.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bokil H S, Pesaran B, Andersen R A, Mitra P P (2006). A method for detection and classification of events in neural activity. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 53(8): 1678–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davies R M, Gerstein G L, Baker S N (2006). Measurement of time-dependent changes in the irregularity of neural spiking. Journal of Neurophysiology, 96: 906–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diba K, Koch C, Segev I (2006). Spike propagation in dendrites with stochastic ion channels. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 20: 77–84.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimitrov A G, Gedeon T (2006). Effects of stimulus transformations on estimates of sensory neuron selectivity. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 20: 265–283.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rinzel J (1985). Excitation dynamics: Insights from simplified membrane models. Theoretical Trends in Neuroscience Federal Proceedings, 44(15): 2944–2946.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabbiani F, Metzner W (1999). Encoding and processing of sensory information in neuronal spike trains. The Journal of Biology, 202: 1267–1279.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Panzeri S, Schultz S R, Treves A, Rolls E T (1999). Correlations and the encoding of information in the nervous system. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B 266(1423): 1001–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agüera y Arcas B, Fairhall A L (2003). What causes a neuron to spike? Neural Computation, 15: 1789–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agüera y Arcas B, Fairhall A L, Bialek W (2003). Computation in a single neuron: Hodgkin and Huxley revisited. Neural Computation, 15: 1715–1749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Izhikevich E M (2006). Polychronization: Computation with spikes. Neural Computation, 18: 245–282.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li X, Ascoli G A (2006). Computational simulation of the input-output relationship in hippocampal pyramidal cells. Journal of Computational. Neuroscience, 21: 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kepler T B, Abbott L F, Marder E (1992). Reduction of conductance-based neuron models. Biological Cybernetics, 66: 381–387.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joeken S, Schwegler H (1995). Predicting spike train responses of neuron models; inM.Verleysen (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, pp. 93–98.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang X J, Buzsáki G (1996). Gamma oscillation by synaptic inhibition in a hippocampal interneuronal network model. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16(20): 6402–6413.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kistler W M, Gerstner W, Leo van Hemmen J (1997). Reduction of the Hodgkin-Huxley equations to a single-variable threshold model. Neural Computation, 9: 1015–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Izhikevich E M (2003). Simple model of spiking neurons. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 14(6): 1569–1572.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shriki O, Hansel D, Sompolinsky H (2003). Rate models for conductance-based cortical neuronal networks. Neural Computation, 15: 1809–1841.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jolivet R, Gerstner W (2004). Predicting spike times of a detailed conductance-based neuron model driven by stochastic spike arrival. Journal of Physiology — Paris, 98: 442–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jolivet R, Lewis T J, Gerstner W (2004). Generalized integrate-and-fire models of neuronal activity approximate spike trains of a detailed model to a high degree of accuracy. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92: 959–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jolivet R, Rauch A, Lüscher H-R, Gerstner W (2006). Integrate-and-fire models with adaptation are good enough: Predicting spike times under random current injection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 18: 595–602.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jolivet R, Rauch A, Lüscher H-R, Gerstner W (2006). Predicting spike timing of neocortical pyramidal neurons by simple threshold models. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 21: 35–49.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clopath C, Jolivet R, Rauch A, Lüscher H-R, Gerstner W (2007). Predicting neuronal activity with simple models of the threshold type: Adaptive exponential integrate-and-fire model with two compartments. Neurocomputing, 70: 1668–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Djabella K, Sorine M (2007). Reduction of a cardiac pacemaker cell model using singular perturbation theory. Proceedings of the European Control Conference 2007, Kos, Greece, pp. 3740–3746.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hodgkin A, Huxley A (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. Journal of Physiology, 117:500–544.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maršálek, P (2000). Coincidence detection in the Hodgkin—Huxley equations. Biosystems, 58(1–3).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Victor J D, Purpura K P (1997). Metric-space analysis of spike trains: Theory, algorithms and application. Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 8: 127–164.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park M H, Kim S (1996). Analysis of phase models for two coupled Hodgkin-Huxley neurons. Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 29(1): 9–16.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sarangdhar M, Kambhampati C (2008). Spiking neurons: Is coincidence-factor enough to compare responses with fluctuating membrane voltage? In World Congress on Engineering 2008: The 2008 International Conference of Systems Biology and Bioengineering, London, UK, 2ȓ4 July 2008, Vol. 2, pp. 1640–1645.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sarangdhar M, Kambhampati C (2008). Spiking neurons and synaptic stimuli: Determining the fidelity of coincidence-factor in neural response comparison. Special Issue of IAENG Journal (in print).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mayur Sarangdhar
    • 1
  • Chandrasekhar Kambhampati
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HullHull

Personalised recommendations