Abstract
Circuit function results from both intrinsic conductances of network neurons and the synaptic conductances that connect them. In models of neural circuits, different combinations of maximal conductances can give rise to similar activity. We compared the robustness of a neural circuit to changes in their intrinsic versus synaptic conductances. To address this, we performed a sensitivity analysis on a population of conductance-based models of the pyloric network from the crustacean stomatogastric ganglion (STG). The model network consists of three neurons with nine currents: a sodium current (Na), three potassium currents (Kd, KCa, A-type), two calcium currents (CaS and CaT), a hyperpolarization-activated current (H), a non-voltage-gated leak current (leak), and a neuromodulatory current (MI). The model cells are connected by seven synapses of two types, glutamatergic and cholinergic. We produced one hundred models of the pyloric network that displayed similar activities with values of maximal conductances distributed over wide ranges. We evaluated the robustness of each model to changes in their maximal conductances. We found that individual models have different sensitivities to changes in their maximal conductances, both in their intrinsic and synaptic conductances. As expected the models become less robust as the extent of the changes increase. Despite quantitative differences in their robustness, we found that in all cases, the model networks are more sensitive to the perturbation of their intrinsic conductances than their synaptic conductances.
l. Introduction
Since the early studies of Hopfield and Hebb (Hebb, 1949; Hopfield, 1982; Sejnowski and Tesauro, 1989) it has been often assumed that changes in synaptic strength provide the salient mechanism by which circuit dynamics are altered in learning (Siegelbaum and Kandel, 1991; Dayan and Abbott, 2001; Tsodyks et al., 1998; Abbott and Nelson, 2000; Sjöström et al., 2001). This tradition was reinforced by years of extracellular recordings of spikes in brain circuits, and by a myriad of computational studies using simplified model neurons such as rate models or integrate and fire neurons (Kempter et al., 1999; Fusi, 2002; Caporale and Dan, 2008; Fiebig and Lansner, 2017). While all of these studies have been extremely informative, they have led to an underestimate of the role of intrinsic membrane currents in network dynamics in larger networks.
At the same time, it is now patently clear that most, if not all, brain circuits display many voltage and time-dependent currents that give their neurons interesting and complex cellular dynamics (McCormick and Huguenard, 1992; Markram, 1997; Ranjan et al., 2020; Grienberger and Magee, 2022). Despite this, there are still prevailing beliefs that changes in synaptic strength that occur as a consequence of activity, represent the dominant mechanism for altering circuit dynamics. In contrast, those who have been studying the role of synaptic and intrinsic currents in circuit dynamics in small central pattern generating circuits have been acutely aware of the importance of modulating intrinsic currents (Calabrese and De Schutter, 1992; Swensen and Marder, 2000; Marder and Bucher, 2001; Harris-Warrick, 2011; Yang et al., 2022) and in some cases the relative insignificance of modifications of synaptic strength (Prinz et al., 2003b). Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, there have not been systematic sensitivity analyses in circuits with easily measurable outputs to compare the relative importance of modification of synaptic and intrinsic conductances for network performance.
In this study, we take advantage of the stereotyped motor patterns of the crustacean pyloric rhythm (Maynard, 1972; Selverston, 1976) to assess its stability to changes in its conductances. Because we did not want these results to be an idiosyncratic consequence of the set of starting parameters, we generated 100 degenerate models (different sets of parameters with similar outputs) to explore the generality of the results in this basic circuit, and then evaluated the robustness of each of these models to changes in circuit parameters.
ll. Results
A. Feature extraction to classify model network activity
The pyloric rhythm in crustaceans is produced by the sequential bursting of the PD (pyloric dilator), LP (lateral pyloric), and PY (pyloric) neurons. The AB (anterior burster) neuron is electrically coupled to the PD neurons and together they form a pacemaker kernel. In these simulations the AB and PD neurons are represented by a single compartment cell, which we call PD. We modified the model of the pyloric network in Prinz et al. (2004) to include a neuromodulatory current, IMI, in each cell (Golowasch and Marder, 1992b; Swensen and Marder, 2000). Figure 1A shows a schematic of the network studied in this work. Each cell is modeled as a single compartment with multiple currents (Golowasch and Marder, 1992a; Buchholtz et al., 1992; Goldman et al., 2001). The interactions in the network are mediated by seven chemical synapses of two types: glutamatergic and cholinergic (Prinz et al., 2004). Each neuron has a sodium current, INa; transient and slow calcium currents, ICaT and ICaS; a transient potassium current, IA; a calcium-dependent potassium current, IKCa; a delayed rectifier potassium current, IKd; a hyperpolarization-activated inward current, IH ; a leak current, Ileak; and a neuromodulatory current IMI.

Feature extraction to classify model network activity
(A) Schematic of the model used in Prinz et al. (2004). The three cells are connected by seven inhibitory chemical synapses of two types: the red curves are cholinergic synapses and the grey curves are glutamatergic synapses. (B) Pyloric network activity. Each cell displays periodic bursting activity and the cells fire in a sequence PD-LP-PY. The color lines indicate the measures used for calculating duty cycle and firing phases. (C) Membrane voltages of control network activity (in black), overlaid with the network activity that results from changing the intrinsic conductances (blue). (D) Membrane voltages of control network activity (in black) overlaid with network activity that results from changing the synaptic conductances (in red). (E) Changes in intrinsic maximal conductance values. The black dots show the unperturbed or control conductances and the blue dots correspond to the changed conductances that produced the blue voltage traces in Figure 1C. Only 2 maximal conductances per cell are shown for simplicity, but all 9 × 3 = 27 intrinsic conductances were changed. (F) Synaptic maximal conductance values for the control network (in black) and the perturbed network (in red) in Figure 1D.
The voltage traces in Figure 1B are an example of normal triphasic pyloric activity produced by one of the models in this study. To evaluate the activity of the network, we performed a number of measurements on the voltage traces of each cell. The colored lines correspond to the quantities used to calculate features of the network’s activity. Duty cycles are calculated as the burst duration Bd divided by the bursting period, τb, of the cell. The phases of the rhythm at which the cells begin and end their bursts, are measured using the start of the PD burst as a reference (Figure 1B). Because the network activity is approximately periodic, it is possible to normalize the times of these events by the period of the networks activity τn = τb. In this way, we computed a number between 0 and 1 that corresponds to the ON and OFF phases for each cell. By computing these quantities for several periods of the activity, we obtained a distribution of values of duty cycles, burst periods, and ON/OFF phases, for each cell. The mean values and standard deviations of these distributions were used as features for classification purposes. For example, a cell that produces irregular bursts will yield a distribution of duty cycles with a standard deviation that would be larger than in the case of a cell that bursts regularly in a normal triphasic rhythm.
The activity of the network depends on the values of the maximal conductances
B. A model database of degenerate solutions
Conductance based models of neuronal activity are often employed to test and generate hypotheses about the functioning of individual neurons and/or circuits. One difficulty in working with these models is that tuning them to perform specific tasks can be challenging. Finding values of the parameters, such as the maximal conductances
The values of the conductances in our model database are widely distributed over many-fold ranges. For example, Figure 2A and 2B shows the distributions of the PD A-current conductances and the PD to PY glutamatergic synapse conductances. These distributions span a broad range and are not normally distributed (p < 0.05, Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965)). In this study, each model is fully specified by its set of maximal conductances

A model database of degenerate solutions.
(A, B) Distributions of gA maximal conductance in PD cells and PD − PYglut glutamatergic synapse maximal conductance (N = 100). (C) Dimensionality reduction (t-SNE) and visualization of models’ maximal conductances. (D, E) Distributions of features: LP duty cycle and LP-ON phase. (F)Dimensionality reduction (t-SNE) and visualization of models’ conductances models’ features.
The models in the database were constrained to produce solutions whose features were similar to the experimental measurements in the STG, but their activities are not identical. For example, Figures 2D and 2E show the distributions of two features: the duty cycle of the LP cell, and the phase of the cycle at which the LP cell begins to fire. Interestingly these features are normally distributed (p > 0.05, Shapiro-Wilk test). Similarly to the values of the conductances, the features we extracted from the activity also can be matched to a high dimensional vector with a total number of features of NF = 11. Figure 2F shows a t-SNE plot of the models’ features. Because the feature vectors are similar, their t-SNE projections do not form groups or clusters.
C. Model networks with similar behavior and different underlying currents
Computational and experimental studies suggest that neurons can produce similar activities employing different contributions of each ionic current. This observation is known as degeneracy and one way to illustrate this was introduced recently in Alonso and Marder (2019). A currentscape is a representation of neural dynamics that displays the percent contribution of each ionic current to the total inward and outward currents over time. Figure 3 shows the currentscapes for the PD, LP, and PY neurons in two different models. The voltage traces of each network are plotted above the currentscapes. The total outward and inward current of each cell are shown as black-filled curves above and below each currentscape plot on a logarithmic scale. The dashed lines correspond to reference current values. The percent contributions of each ionic current are represented in colors. The outward currents are on top and inward currents on the bottom.

Model networks produce similar behavior with different underlying currents.
Currentscapes for two different models. The voltage traces for both networks are plotted at the top. The filled curves on top and bottom of the currentscapes for each cell type show the total inward (outward) current over time in logarithmic scale. The colored filled curves indicate the percent contribution of each current over time.
The currentscapes show visible differences in each cell within a model as well as across the two different models, yet the activity of the networks is similar. For example, there is a visibly larger contribution of the IMI current to the PD cell in Model B as compared to Model A. Likewise, the contribution of the IKd current is more prominent in Model B’s LP cell than Model A’s LP cell. In addition, there is little to no contribution of the KCa current in the Model A PY cell, while contributions of this current are more visible in the Model B PY cell. Furthermore, there is a small contribution of the ICaS current in the Model A PD cell, but a larger contribution in the Model B PD cell. Because the activity is driven by different combinations of currents, the excitability properties of the cells are different, and this in turn results in differential sensitivities to perturbations.
D. Model networks are more sensitive to perturbation of intrinsic than synaptic conductances
We compared the robustness of intrinsic and synaptic conductances by modifying these two sets separately. For this, we independently varied the values of each maximal conductance
We explored changes to maximal conductances between 0 to 100 percent. The change size or variation range was defined as δ ∈ [0, 1]. For each conductance we perform the change
Figure 4 shows the result of this analysis on ten models. In all panels, the x-axis corresponds to the variation range δ. The y-axis indicates the fraction of traces that were classified as pyloric activity. By definition, when the variation range is zero (δ = 0), all “perturbations” result in the same model, and therefore, the activity is the same as in control. As expected, the fraction of traces that display pyloric activity decreases as the variation range (δ) increases. This is true for both intrinsic (blue) and synaptic conductances (red). The synaptic sensitivity curve is above the intrinsic sensitivity curve for all values of the variation range δ. This means that the models are more resilient to changes in their synaptic conductances.

Model networks are differentially sensitive to modification of intrinsic and synaptic conductances.
Curves representing the decrease in the percentage of pyloric models as a function of the variation range. Curves from intrinsic conductance perturbations are shown in blue, and synaptic in red. Ten sets of curves are shown for ten models with different combinations of maximal conductances.
To quantify the observation that the intrinsic conductances are more sensitive to perturbations than the synaptic conductances, we calculated the average sensitivity curves in Figure 5A. The plot shows the average fraction of pyloric traces across all models for all values of the variation range δ. To further quantify these observations we fitted each sensitivity curve with a sigmoid function (Figure 5B),

Model networks are more sensitive to changes in intrinsic conductances
(A) Average sensitivity curves across models. The plots show the average percentage of pyloric models for each value of δ (intrinsic curves show in blue, synaptic in red). (B) Example sigmoidal fits for one set of intrinsic and synaptic sensitivity curves. (C) Distributions of midpoint parameters for all fits of the sensitivity curves (intrinsic in blue, synaptic in red, 20 bins). (D) Distributions of width parameters for all fits of the sensitivity curves (intrinsic in blue, synaptic in red, 20 bins). (E) Distributions of the areas under the curves (intrinsic in blue, synaptic in red, 20 bins). (F) Distribution of eigenvalues for the first PCA component (97.6%) (intrinsic in blue, synaptic in red, 20 bins).
The sigmoid functions approximate the sensitivity curves well, with an average correlation coefficient of r2 = 0.98, and an average error of approximately 1% for each value of δ. The fits to the synaptic sensitivity curves were marginally better than in the intrinsic case as the mean error for the synaptic was 0.55% (r2 = 0.98), whereas it was 1.54% (r2 = 0.98) for the intrinsic.
To compare the intrinsic and synaptic sensitivity curves, we inspected the distributions of the sigmoidal fit parameters (Figure 5C, 5D). These sets of parameters were not normally distributed (p < 0.05, Shapiro-Wilk test) except for the midpoint parameter in the intrinsic curves (p = 0.13). To evaluate if two distributions were statistically different, we used Student’s t-Test (Student, 1908). The midpoint parameter distributions are different, and there is little to no overlap between them (p < 0.001). In addition, we found that the intrinsic conductances have much smaller midpoint parameters, consistent with the observation that their sensitivity curves decrease faster as the size of the conductance changes δ increases.
Although the distributions of midpoint parameters are visibly different, the width parameter distributions largely overlap. However, these distributions are significantly different (p < 0.001, Student’s t-Test) because the red distribution is long-tailed. A smaller midpoint parameter and a smaller width parameter both indicate that a curve decreases more quickly. This difference in the midpoint parameters indicates that the synaptic conductances must be varied further from their starting values to disrupt pyloric activity.
To further compare the intrinsic and synaptic sensitivity curves, we calculated the areas under the curves (Figure 5E). The areas under the synaptic curves are significantly larger (p < 0.001, Student’s t-Test), consistent with the previous observation that the network is more robust to perturbations in their synaptic conductances.
To characterize the variability in the sensitivity curves, we performed principal component analysis (PCA). The first component captures 97.6% of the variance, which indicates that the curves are similar and predominantly vary along a single dimension. The distribution of the eigenvalues required to reconstruct the curves from the principal component are shown in Figure 5F. The eigenvalues for the intrinsic and synaptic curves result in visibly different distributions (p < 0.05, Student’s t-Test) with means of opposite signs. These eigenvalues are normally distributed in the case of the intrinsic curves (p = 0.82, Shapiro-Wilk test), and not normally distributed in the synaptic case (p < 0.05). The intrinsic and synaptic curves can be reasonably approximated by the same sigmoid-looking curve, but flipping the sign in each case.
E. Relative robustness of models visualized in conductance space
These 3 neuron models require the specification of Ni = 27 intrinsic conductances and Ns = 7 synaptic conductances. There are multiple combinations of
Figure 6 shows 2D projections of the regions of conductance space for which the activity is pyloric GP, for two different models. The top rows show the projection of GP over pairs of intrinsic conductances,

Relative robustness of models visualized in conductance space.
Ranges of conductance space where the activity of the network is pyloric, for two different models (model #1 and model #2). All panels show the output of the classifier over 2D ranges of conductance space. The top panels show pairs of intrinsic maximal conductances (
The shape of GP is intricate and complex. Despite this, some basic properties of GP are revealed. The top panels of Figure 6 show the projection of GP over the same pair of intrinsic conductances, across cell types. The blue regions across panels are different, indicating that the same perturbation in different cell types may result in drastically different outputs: cell identity matters. The white cross is closer to the edge in the case of the LP cell, meaning that this particular model is more sensitive to perturbations in the LP cell than to perturbations in the other cells.
The second row in Figure 6, model A, shows the projection of GP over pairs of synaptic conductances. The red areas correspond to values of the conductances for which the activity is pyloric (GP), and the white cross indicates the starting or “control” values of this particular model. As before the shape of these projections are intricate and complex. They also are different across pairs of conductances. Notice that with the exception of the cholinergic synapses (first panel), the initial value of the conductances (white cross) is farther away from the edge than in the intrinsic cases, consistent with the finding that the model is more robust to perturbations in its synaptic conductances. In the same vein, note that the proportion of area of the white box (δ = 1) occupied by the red (synaptic) region is visibly larger than the proportion of area occupied by the blue (intrinsic) region. We computed the proportions of areas of the white boxes that correspond to pyloric activity. These values for the intrinsic conductances panels are PD = 0.58, LP = 0.50, PY = 0.49, and the proportions for the synaptic conductances panels are PDPY = 0.62, PDLP = 0.87, and LPPD = 0.94. The occupied areas for synaptic conductances are larger than in the intrinsic conductances panels, consistent with our finding that the circuits’ activities are more robust to changes in synaptic conductances versus changes in intrinsic conductances.
Figure 6 (bottom) shows the same calculation in a different model (model B). As before, the blue regions and the red regions are different across cells and pairs of synapses. The shape of the projections of GP are different across models. In the case of the intrinsic conductances the shapes are similar overall, but there are visible differences, such as the white cross in the LP cell being farther away from the edge as in model A. The projection of GP on pairs of synaptic conductances is very different in this model. In this case, almost the totality of the area enclosed by the white boxes (δ = 1) corresponds to GP, suggesting that model B is more robust than model A to changes in synaptic conductances. This is consistent with the finding that the synaptic sensitivity curve is steeper in model A (Model #1 in Figure 4) than in model B (Model #2 in Figure 4). As before, we computed the proportion of areas of pyloric activity within the white boxes: PD = 0.61, LP = 0.55, PY = 0.52, and the proportions for the synaptic conductances panels are PDPY = 0.88, PDLP = 0.87, and LPPD = 0.83. These results provide an intuition of the complexities of GP. Not only are these regions hard-to-impossible to characterize in one circuit, but they are also different across circuits.
III. Discussion
A major goal of much of neuroscience is to understand how experience alters the function of brain circuits, both in the context of development and learning. At the same time, we are aware that damage to the brain can produce altered brain structure. It is therefore important to understand the resilience of brain circuits to damage, and to understand the plasticity mechanisms that foster learning and recovery from damage. Thus, it is critical to understand which changes in circuit parameters are most influential in altering circuit function.
Despite the enormous body of work on the importance of alterations of synaptic strength in numerous preparations, there are also many well-documented cases of neurons that change their intrinsic excitability during development or as a function of neuromodulation. For example the Rohan-Beard cells first show a slow Ca2+-dependent spike, before eventually acquiring a rapid Na+-dependent action potential (Baccaglini and Spitzer, 1977) and ACh and biogenic amine neuromodulators directly alter the intrinsic properties of thalamic and other neurons (McCormick and Pape, 1990; McCormick et al., 1991; McCormick and Prince, 1986, 1987, 1988; McCormick and Wang, 1991; Williams and Fletcher, 2019). There are myriad other examples in which neuromodulators completely transform the dynamics of neuronal activity (Bargmann, 2012; Marder, 2012; Nusbaum and Blitz, 2012). A neuromodulator that changes a neuron’s activity profile from silent, to tonic firing, to producing plateau potentials or oscillatory bursts of activity is likely to appreciably alter the activity of the circuits in which these neurons are found. Because altering an intrinsic current is often accompanied by changes in the time scales of neuronal activity, even modest changes in an intrinsic conductance can result in major alterations in the dynamics of a target neuron and the circuits in which it functions (Desai et al., 1999b,a). In a sense, we biased the results of this study in manner that underestimates the influence of intrinsic activity by selecting for neurons that were within a restricted region of the degenerate range of solutions.
We expect that results similar to these will be found in many brain regions that show strong propensities for plateau and oscillatory properties, especially in response to neuromodulation. It remains to be seen whether cortical or hippocampal regions, typically thought to be modified by changes in synaptic strength (Hasselmo et al., 1995), are less sensitive to modulation of intrinsic properties.
In this study we evaluated the role of changes in inhibitory synaptic strengths, as in the STG synaptic connections are inhibitory. Because increases in inhibitory synaptic conductances push the membrane potential closer to reversal potential, there can be a diminishing effect of increasing the inhibitory synaptic strength, although the increase in the post-synaptic conductance still decreases the efficacy of all other currents, and changes in inhibitory synaptic currents can saturate (Prinz et al., 2003b).
Although increasing the strength of excitatory synaptic currents also is somewhat diminished as the membrane potential of neurons moves closer to the reversal potential of an EPSP, the effect of increasing the EPSP may be amplified as voltage dependent currents are activated. Therefore, it is possible that a circuit dominated by excitation may be more dominated by changes in synaptic than intrinsic currents. Nonetheless, a large body of work now argues that much cortical function depends on a balance of excitatory/inhibitory function (Van Vreeswijk and Sompolinsky, 1996; Atallah and Scanziani, 2009; Isaacson and Scanziani, 2011; Lim and Goldman, 2013; Lo et al., 2015; Rubin et al., 2017; Wang, 2020; Sadeh and Clopath, 2021), so a similar study such as this needs to be done in a modeled cortical or hippocampal circuit. That said, this study benefits greatly from a simple measure of circuit performance that can be used to determine circuit robustness, and this is less obvious in many other circuits. We believe our results will hold for other rhythmic circuits and will be relevant for similar studies in other circuits with more complex functions.
IV. Methods
A. The Model
We employed a model circuit inspired by the STG of crustaceans that was developed and studied previously by multiple authors (Golowasch et al., 1999; Prinz et al., 2004; Alonso and Marder, 2020). The model network is composed of three cells named PD, LP and PY, each modeled by a single compartment with nine currents: all cells have a sodium current, INa; a delayed rectifier potassium current, IKd; transient and slower calcium currents, ICaT and ICaS; a transient potassium current, IA; a calcium-dependent potassium current, IKCa; a hyperpolarization-activated inward current, IH ; a leak current, Ileak; and a neuromodulatory current IMI (Golowasch and Marder, 1992b; Swensen and Marder, 2000). This model of the pyloric network is identical to previous ones, except for the inclusion of the neuromodulatory current IMI.
The membrane potential of the cells evolves according to a Hodgkin-Huxley equation for a single compartment,
The terms in the sum are the ionic currents
The reversal potential of the Na, K, H, leak, and IMI currents were kept fixed at ENa = 30mV, EK = −80mV, EH = −20mV, Eleak = −50mV, and EIMI = −10mV . The reversal potential of the calcium currents ECa was updated using the Nernst equation assuming an extracellular calcium concentration of 3×103μM . The kinetic equations describing the seven voltage-gated conductances were modeled as in Liu et al. (1998),
The functions
Here
The interactions in the network consist of 7 chemical synapses and are similar to Prinz et al. (2004). The synaptic current is given by
with,
and
These equations are identical to Prinz et al. (2004) except for the inclusion of a bound for the timescale of activation τr = 20msec (Alonso and Marder, 2020).
B. Generating the model database
We generated 100 different models of the pyloric network following the approach outlined in Alonso and Marder (2019, 2020), which we briefly review here. Each model is specified by a set of maximal conductances, while all other parameters (such as reversal potentials) are the same across models. Our approach consists of defining a target or objective function such that upon minimization, it will yield sets of conductances that result in normal or control pyloric activity.
The target function takes values of conductances as its input. The model is integrated for 20 seconds and the first 10 seconds are dropped to minimize transient activity. We then compute several quantities: the average (<>) burst frequency < fb >, the average duty cycle < dc >, the number of crossings with a slow wave threshold #sw = −50mV, the number of bursts #b, and the average lags between bursts < ΔPD−LP > and < ΔPD−PY >. In this study we also sought solutions that would display a large voltage separation between the slow wave and the spike troughs. This was done by defining a second slow wave threshold at #sw = −45mV and checking that the number of crossings is the same as the number of bursts. Finally, to penalize unstable solutions we compute the standard deviation of the burst frequency and duty cycle distributions; a solution was penalized if std({fb}) ≥< fb > ×0.1 or std({dc}) ≥< dc > ×0.2. If a solution is not discarded we can use these quantities to score its similarity to the target, pyloric behavior. We define the errors as follows,
Ef measures how far the bursting frequency of each cell is to a target frequency ftg = 3, Edc accounts for the duty cycle, Esw accounts for the difference between the number of bursts and the number of crossings with the slow wave threshold at tsw = −50mV (if #sw ≠ #b then Esw is large), Esw2 is the same as Esw but for a different threshold value (tsw2 = −45mV), Eph compares the lags between bursts (in units of the bursting period
For each set of maximal conductances
The coefficients (α, β, γ, γ2, η) determine which features are more important. In this work we used α = 10, β = 1000, γ = 1, γ2 = 1, η = 10. We found that using these weights results in a target function that produces useful sets of conductances (that produce normal pyloric triphasic activity). All penalties Ei were calculated using T = 10 secs. The simulations were done using an RK4 integration routine with dt = 0.05 msecs.
The target control behavior is defined as all cells bursting with 20% duty cycle for PD
We defined a search space of allowed values listed here: for each cell we searched for
C. Extracting features from model traces
The models were simulated for 10 seconds, and the final 5 seconds of the simulation were utilized. We calculated spike times by finding the local maxima of the time series of the membrane potential of each cell. Some subthreshold depolarizations resulted in local maxima that were not spikes. To isolate the spikes from these subthreshold depolarizations, local maxima were filtered to only include spike times within 5ms of the local maxima of the derivative of the voltage
To calculate the bursts’ start and end times, we set a threshold to distinguish inter-burst intervals (IBIs) from inter-spike intervals (ISIs) ISIth. In the case of a regularly bursting cell, the ISI distribution is bimodal, with one peak corresponding to the intraburst ISI, and the other peak corresponding to the IBIs. We calculated the ISI threshold by first detecting the peaks in the histograms of ISIs and then chose the value halfway between these peaks.
In some cases the distribution of ISIs was not bimodal due to irregular bursting or tonic spiking. This made it difficult to determine an ISI threshold to correctly identify bursts. In cases where the threshold could not be estimated, or it was estimated to be larger than 300mS or smaller than 100mS, we set ISIth = 100mS. This allowed us to reliably calculate phases by counting tonic spikes in the triphasic rhythm as burst starts and burst ends while also detecting spikes with large ISIs at the end of a burst. Using this method led to errors in burst identification in some cases, and this is a source of error and a limitation of the study. The features extracted from each model include the mean and standard deviations of the distributions of duty cycles that each cell produces over the period of 5 seconds. We also calculated the means of the distributions of the phases of the rhythm at which each cell begins and ends a burst. We calculated the duty cycles for each cell as the duration of the burst Bd divided by the bursting period (τb),
The phases were calculated as the difference between the cell’s on/off times and the start of burst in the PD cell PDon (taken as a reference) divided by the period of the rhythm (τn),
We defined τn as the bursting period τb of the PD cell, thus when PD either did not fire or fired irregularly phases were not calculated and these quantities were set to 0.
D. Classification of model traces
The activity of each trace was evaluated by first building a vector containing features of its activity. The features are: the means of the distributions of duty cycles for each cell, the standard deviations of the distributions of duty cycles for each cell, and the means of the distributions of phases for each cell. We attempted classification of the vectors using a number of algorithms including random forest classifiers and gradient boosting machines (Ho, 1995; Friedman, 2001), and we chose to use random forest classifiers to avoid the possibility that gradient boosting machines might over fit to the training data for our purposes (Natekin and Knoll, 2013). A random forest classifier is a machine learning method used to classify items based on a list of the item’s features (Ho, 1995). The classifier we created consisted of 500 decision trees (max depth = 4), where each tree was fed a different subset of the features for classification. A winner-takes-all vote between the trees chooses the output label of the classifier. The classifier must first be trained with a set of data that was manually labeled, with the help of experimentalists that study the pyloric network in the crustacean STG. When the cells were bursting in a triphasic pattern in the order PD-LP-PY, with at least two spikes per burst, we considered the activity to be pyloric (see Figure 1). We trained the classifier on a database of 1200 model solutions or traces featuring a wide variety of waveforms. Any other type of activity was considered ‘not pyloric’. In some cases we excluded rhythms that displayed pyloric characteristics but also exhibited irregular features, such as abnormally large duty cycles, cells with low amplitude spikes, and inconsistent firing and/or bursting patterns.
We found that the trained classifier generalized with ≥ 95% accuracy for many, but not all models. To verify that the classifier properly classified the models we chose, we manually checked thousands of traces. Only models that were classified with this level of accuracy after perturbation were used in this study. On rare occasions, the classifier misclassified models that are clearly pyloric as not pyloric even though the list of features fed to the classifier were calculated properly. The percentage of misclassifications was approximately 2 − 3%, which is consistent with the accuracy of the classifier.
E. Sigmoidal fits
To analyze the sensitivity curves quantitatively, we fit them with sigmoid functions. We optimized for the sigmoidal midpoint and width parameters by minimizing an error function using a brute force approach. The sigmoid function is given by,
where the a parameter controls the width of the sigmoid, the b parameter determines the midpoint of the sigmoid, and the c parameter corresponds to the maximum asymptote of the sigmoid function. Variable δ represents the variation range parameter. Parameter c was fixed at 100% because this is the maximum percentage of models that can be pyloric, and by definition all curves start at 100% when the size of the perturbation is δ = 0 (i.e. we impose S(δ = 0) = 100). To find the values of a and b that best approximate the sensitivity curves we minimize an error function defined as follows,
where δi = [0,0.1, ….1] are the values of δ for which we computed the sensitivity curves (Nδ = 11), and y(δi) are the values of a sensitivity curve for each value of δi. We evaluated all possible combinations of the a and b parameters over a 100 × 100 2D grid of possible pairs with (−0.5 to −0.01 for a, 0 to 2 for b), and kept the values of a and b that minimized the error function E.
F. Conductance Ranges
There are regions in conductance space where the activity is a normal pyloric rhythm. Visualizing and characterizing these regions is challenging because they are high dimensional objects, and we are limited to visualizing their two-dimensional projections. We evaluated the output of the classifier over 2-dimensional ranges in conductance space. For this we chose a pair of conductances
Additional information
Funding acknowledgments
NIH R35 NS097343, R01 MH046742 (E.M.)
References
- Synaptic plasticity: taming the beastNature neuroscience 3:1178–1183
- Visualization of currents in neural models with similar behavior and different conductance densitieseLife 8:e42722
- Temperature compensation in a small rhythmic circuiteLife 9:e55470
- Instantaneous modulation of gamma oscillation frequency by balancing excitation with inhibitionNeuron 62:566–577
- Developmental changes in the inward current of the action potential of rohon-beard neuronesThe Journal of physiology 271:93–117
- Beyond the connectome: how neuromodulators shape neural circuitsBioessays 34:458–465
- Central pattern generating neurons simultaneously express fast and slow rhythmic activities in the stomatogastric ganglionJournal of neurophysiology 95:3617–3632
- Mathematical model of an identified stomatogastric ganglion neuronJournal of Neurophysiology 67:332–340
- Motor-pattern-generating networks in invertebrates: modeling our way toward understandingTrends in neurosciences 15:439–445
- Spike timing–dependent plasticity: a hebbian learning ruleAnnu. Rev. Neurosci 31:25–46
- Computational exploration of neuron and neural network models in neurobiologyNeuroinformatics :167–179
- Theoretical NeuroscienceCambridge, MA: MIT Press
- Activity-dependent regulation of excitability in rat visual cortical neuronsNeurocomputing 26:101–106
- Plasticity in the intrinsic excitability of cortical pyramidal neuronsNature Neuroscience 2:515–520
- A spiking working memory model based on hebbian short-term potentiationJournal of Neuroscience 37:83–96
- Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machineAnnals of statistics :1189–1232
- Hebbian spike-driven synaptic plasticity for learning patterns of mean firing ratesBiological cybernetics 87:459–470
- Parametric sensitivity analysis of the most recent computational models of rabbit cardiac pacemakingBiophysical Journal 104:296a
- Genetic algorithms and machine learningMachine Learning 3:95–99
- Global structure, robustness, and modulation of neuronal modelsJournal of Neuroscience 21:5229–5238
- Network stability from activity-dependent regulation of neuronal conductancesNeural computation 11:1079–1096
- Ionic currents of the lateral pyloric neuron of the stomatogastric ganglion of the crabJournal of Neurophysiology 67:318–331
- Proctolin activates an inward current whose voltage dependence is modified by extracellular ca2+Journal of Neuroscience 12:810–817
- Entorhinal cortex directs learning-related changes in CA1 representationsNature 611:554–562
- Quantitative reevaluation of the effects of short-and long-term removal of descending modulatory inputs on the pyloric rhythm of the crab, cancer borealisEneuro 2
- Neuromodulation and flexibility in central pattern generator networksCurrent opinion in neurobiology 21:685–692
- Dynamics of learning and recall at excitatory recurrent synapses and cholinergic modulation in rat hippocampal region CA3Journal of Neuroscience 15:5249–5262
- The Organization of BehaviorNew York: Wiley
- Stochastic neighbor embeddingAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15
- Random decision forestsProceedings of 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition 1:278–282
- Genetic algorithmsScientific American 267:66–73
- Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilitiesProceedings of the national academy of sciences 79:2554–2558
- How inhibition shapes cortical activityNeuron 72:231–243
- Hebbian learning and spiking neuronsPhysical Review E 59:4498
- Balanced cortical microcircuitry for maintaining information in working memoryNature neuroscience 16:1306–1314
- A model neuron with activity-dependent conductances regulated by multiple calcium sensorsJournal of Neuroscience 18:2309–2320
- Speed-accuracy tradeoff by a control signal with balanced excitation and inhibitionJournal of Neurophysiology 114:650–661
- Neuromodulation of neuronal circuits: back to the futureNeuron 76:1–11
- Central pattern generators and the control of rhythmic movementsCurrent biology 11:R986–R996
- A network of tufted layer 5 pyramidal neuronsCerebral cortex (New York, NY: 1991) 7:523–533
- Simpler networksAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences 193:59–72
- Actions of norepinephrine in the cerebral cortex and thalamus: implications for function of the central noradrenergic systemProgress in brain research 88:293–305
- Serotonin and noradrenaline excite gabaergic neurones of the guinea-pig and cat nucleus reticularis thalamiThe Journal of physiology 442:235–255
- A model of the electrophysiological properties of thalamocortical relay neuronsJournal of neurophysiology 68:1384–1400
- Noradrenergic and serotonergic modulation of a hyperpolarization-activated cation current in thalamic relay neuronesThe Journal of physiology 431:319–342
- Acetylcholine induces burst firing in thalamic reticular neurones by activating a potassium conductanceNature 319:402–405
- Actions of acetylcholine in the guinea-pig and cat medial and lateral geniculate nuclei, in vitroThe Journal of physiology 392:147–165
- Noradrenergic modulation of firing pattern in guinea pig and cat thalamic neurons, in vitroJournal of neurophysiology 59:978–996
- Modeling the leech heartbeat elemental oscillator i. interactions of intrinsic and synaptic currentsJournal of computational neuroscience 2:215–235
- Gradient boosting machines, a tutorialFrontiers in neurorobotics 7:21
- Neuropeptide modulation of microcircuitsCurrent opinion in neurobiology 22:592–601
- Alternative to hand-tuning conductance-based models: construction and analysis of databases of model neuronsJournal of Neurophysiology 90:3998–4015
- Similar network activity from disparate circuit parametersNature Neuroscience 7:1345
- The functional consequences of changes in the strength and duration of synaptic inputs to oscillatory neuronsJournal of Neuroscience 23:943–954
- A kinetic map of the homomeric voltage-gated potassium channel (Kv) familyBiophysical Journal 118:108a
- Balanced excitation and inhibition are required for high-capacity, noise-robust neuronal selectivityProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:E9366–E9375
- Inhibitory stabilization and cortical computationNature Reviews Neuroscience 22:21–37
- The hebb rule for synaptic plasticity: algorithms and implementationsIn:
- Byrne J.H.
- Berry W.O.
- Neuronal mechanisms for rhythmic motor pattern generation in a simple systemNeural control of locomotion :377–399
- An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)Biometrika 52:591–611
- Learning-related synaptic plasticity: LTP and LTDCurrent opinion in neurobiology 1:113–120
- Rate, timing, and cooperativity jointly determine cortical synaptic plasticityNeuron 32:1149–1164
- The probable error of a meanBiometrika :1–25
- Multiple peptides converge to activate the same voltage-dependent current in a central pattern-generating circuitJournal of Neuroscience 20:6752–6759
- Precise temperature compensation of phase in a rhythmic motor patternPLoS biology 8:e1000469
- Structure and visualization of high-dimensional conductance spacesJournal of neurophysiology 96:891–905
- A model of a ca3 hippocampal pyramidal neuron incorporating voltage-clamp data on intrinsic conductancesJournal of neurophysiology 66:635–650
- Neural networks with dynamic synapsesNeural computation 10:821–835
- Selective regulation of current densities underlies spontaneous changes in the activity of cultured neuronsJournal of Neuroscience 15:3640–3652
- Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excitatory and inhibitory activityScience 274:1724–1726
- Macroscopic gradients of synaptic excitation and inhibition in the neocortexNature reviews neuroscience 21:169–178
- A dendritic substrate for the cholinergic control of neocortical output neuronsNeuron 101:486–499
- Minimal requirements for a neuron to coregulate many properties and the implications for ion channel correlations and robustnesseLife 11:e72875
- Neuronal morphology enhances robustness to perturbations of channel densitiesProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120:e2219049120
Article and author information
Author information
Version history
- Sent for peer review:
- Preprint posted:
- Reviewed Preprint version 1:
- Reviewed Preprint version 2:
Copyright
© 2024, Fournier et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
- views
- 466
- downloads
- 10
- citations
- 0
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.