Are the input parameters of white noise driven integrate and fire neurons uniquely determined by rate and CV?
Introduction
Stochastic integrate and fire (IF) neurons constitute an important tool in theoretical neuroscience, having been used to address a number of relevant biological problems. For instance, different variants of these models have been employed in the debate on the high variability of the interspike interval (ISI) observed for cortical neurons (Softky and Koch, 1993; Gutkin and Ermentrout, 1998). Other problems in which stochastic IF models have been applied include the response to fast signals (Brunel et al., 2001; Lindner and Schimansky-Geier, 2001; Fourcaud-Trocmé et al., 2003; Naundorf et al., 2005), asynchronous spiking in recurrent networks (Brunel, 2000), and oscillations of firing activity in systems with spatially correlated noisy driving (Doiron et al., 2003, Doiron et al., 2004; Lindner et al., 2005b).
IF neurons can be classified according to the nonlinearities that govern their subthreshold dynamics. Three simple and important variants are the perfect integrate and fire (PIF), leaky integrate and fire (LIF), and quadratic integrate and fire (QIF) models, in which the subthreshold dynamics is described by a constant, a linear, and a quadratic voltage dependence, respectively. Noisy inputs with different degrees of biological realism have been considered for these models. One simple choice is a white Gaussian input current, corresponding to the so-called diffusion approximation of synaptic spike train input (Holden, 1976; Ricciardi, 1977; Tuckwell, 1989). The PIF with white noise drive (also referred to as the random walk model of neural firing) was first considered by Gerstein and Mandelbrot (1964). The LIF with a white Gaussian input current has been studied by Johannesma (1968) and afterwards by many other authors (see Holden, 1976; Ricciardi, 1977; Tuckwell, 1989; Burkitt, 2006 and references therein); it is also referred to as Ornstein–Uhlenbeck neuron (Lánský and Rospars, 1995). White noise driving in the QIF was studied by Gutkin and Ermentrout (1998) and Lindner et al. (2003).
The firing statistics of the various IF models may depend sensitively on the specific nonlinearity in the respective model, and so it is not clear at the first glance which model is capable of reproducing which features of the firing statistics of real neurons. For instance, it has been shown that LIF and QIF display rather different phase shifts if driven by a periodic stimulus (Fourcaud-Trocmé et al., 2003). Further, the LIF with periodic stimulation can transmit signals of very high frequencies if they are encoded in the noise intensity (Lindner and Schimansky-Geier, 2001), while the QIF cannot (Naundorf et al., 2005). Last but not least, when the strength of the input noise is varied, the LIF can show coherence resonance (CR) (Pakdaman et al., 2001; Lindner et al., 2002) whereas the PIF and the QIF do not display CR (Lindner et al., 2003) (see also below). A thorough comparison of different stochastic IF neurons and the roles of their respective nonlinearities constitutes therefore an interesting and largely open problem.
If one wants to compare two specific IF models one should tune their input parameters (mean and intensity of the input fluctuations) such that the basic firing statistics is the same. A simple choice for the basic firing statistics is the firing rate, quantifying the intensity of the spike train, and the ISI's coefficient of variation (CV), quantifying the irregularity of the spike train. Setting both models in this way in the same firing regime (e.g. low spike rate and high ISI variability), one can then ask for higher statistics (e.g. the power spectrum of the spike train) or for their response characteristics (e.g. to weak periodic stimulation or step currents). The idea for such a tuning tacitly assumes that there is for each of the models at most one input parameter set yielding a desired firing statistics, for instance, rate and CV. At a closer look, however, this is not evident at all: are the input parameters for a white noise driven IF model indeed uniquely determined if we prescribe certain values of the rate and the CV? This is the question that we address in this paper and we will answer it for the three IF models mentioned above, namely, PIF, LIF, and QIF neurons.
The question discussed here is also related to the problem of parameter estimation for an IF model from experimental data, which has been subject of several studies (see Lánský and Ditlevsen, 2008 and references therein). In one approach, the model parameters are inferred from subthreshold membrane measurements (for a recent reference see Badel et al., 2008). In another approach, model parameters are estimated using solely the ISI statistics (Tuckwell and Richter, 1978; Inoue et al., 1995; Rauch et al., 2003; Camera et al., 2004; Shinomoto et al., 1999; Ditlevsen and Lansky, 2005, Ditlevsen and Lansky, 2007; Mullowney and Iyengar, 2008). The latter approach is of importance, since often subthreshold data are not available. Most of these studies consider the LIF model. To the best of our knowledge, the problem of the uniqueness of input parameters has been addressed only by Kostal et al. (2007), where it is mentioned without a proof that uniqueness of the input parameters given fixed rate and CV holds for the LIF.
In this paper, we show analytically that rate and CV uniquely determine the input parameters for the three models. We first introduce the models and the statistics studied here (Section 2). In the main part of the paper (3 PIF neuron, 4 LIF neuron, 5 QIF neuron), we briefly review the rate and CV as functions of the input parameters and then prove the uniqueness of the relation between these parameters and the former statistics. We give an outlook to generalizations of the considered problem in Section 6.
Section snippets
Definition of the models and relation to the first passage time problem
IF models consist of two ingredients: (i) a one-dimensional stochastic ordinary differential equation describing the subthreshold behavior of the membrane potential as a function of time and (ii) a fire-and-reset rule. The equation for the membrane potential has the form of a current-balance equation (Burkitt, 2006):where is the membrane capacitance and and denote the synaptic and injected current, respectively. Here we will consider the
PIF neuron
The mean and variance of the ISI are given by (see Holden, 1976; Tuckwell, 1988; Bulsara et al., 1994; Burkitt, 2006):We stress that for the PIF; otherwise all moments of the ISI diverge. For this model the expressions for rate and CV are quite simple:Moreover, the contour lines for the rate and the CV can be explicitly calculated (without resorting to the differential equations (17), (18)):We
LIF neuron
For the LIF, the mean and variance of the ISIs are (Ricciardi, 1977; Tuckwell, 1988; Lindner et al., 2002)where
From these expressions and the general relations, Eqs. (17), (18), one can derive the differential equations that govern the contour lines as follows:
QIF neuron
For the QIF, one has (Lindner et al., 2003):For this model, the following scaling relations (Lindner et al., 2003) facilitate the determination of the contour lines in parameter space for rate and CV:The scaling relation, Eq. (41), together with the monotonicity of the CV for (see Lindner et al., 2003), implies that (for ) a certain
Conclusions
To summarize, we have reviewed the behavior of rate and CV as functions of the input parameters for three different IF models. As the central result of our paper, we have shown that these statistics uniquely determine the input parameters for the models studied. This sets a framework for systematic comparison of these models: they can be compared on an equal footing when their parameters are tuned so as to yield the same rate and CV. Reports on these comparisons will be published elsewhere.
It
Note added in proof
The maximum of the CV as a function of the base current for the LIF model has been discussed previously by F. Barbeieri and N. Brunel, Front. Comput. Neurosci. 1, 5 (2007).
Acknowledgments
We would not have been able to complete parts of our proofs without many discussions with Jochen Bröcker, Gianluigi Del Magno, and Tilo Schwalger; they are gratefully acknowledged.
References (52)
- et al.
Firing frequency of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons with synaptic current dynamics
J. Theor. Biol.
(1998) - et al.
Random walk models for the spike activity of a single neuron
Biophys. J.
(1964) Resonate-and-fire neurons
Neural Networks
(2001)- et al.
Effect of an exponentially decaying threshold on the firing statistics of a stochastic integrate-and-fire neuron
J. Theor. Biol.
(2005) - et al.
Dynamical response properties of a canonical model for type-i membranes
Neurocomputing
(2005) - et al.
Coherence resonance and discharge reliability in neurons and neuronal models
Neural Networks
(2001) A theoretical analysis of neuronal variability
Biophys. J.
(1965)Some models of neuronal variability
Biophys. J.
(1967)- et al.
Neuronal interspike time distributions and estimation of neurophysiological and neuroanatomical parameters
J. Theor. Biol.
(1978) - et al.
Handbook of Mathematical Functions
(1970)
Dynamic I–V curves are reliable predictors of naturalistic pyramidal-neuron voltage traces
J. Neurophysiol.
Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons
J. Comput. Neurosci.
Effects of synaptic noise and filtering on the frequency response of spiking neurons
Phys. Rev. Lett.
Cooperative behavior in the periodically modulated Wiener process: noise-induced complexity in a model neuron
Phys. Rev. E
Cooperative behavior in periodically driven noisy integrate-and-fire models of neuronal dynamics
Phys. Rev. E
A review of the integrate-and-fire neuron model: I. Homogeneous synaptic input
Biol. Cybern.
Minimal models of adapted neuronal response to in vivo-like input currents
Neural Comput.
Suprathreshold stochastic firing dynamics with memory in P-type electroreceptors
Phys. Rev. Lett.
Noise shaping by interval correlations increases neuronal information transfer
Phys. Rev. Lett.
Relaxation from a marginal state in optical bistability
Phys. Rev. A
Estimation of the input parameters in the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck neuronal model
Phys. Rev. E
Parameters of stochastic diffusion processes estimated from observations of first hitting-times: application to the leaky integrate-and-fire neuronal model
Phys. Rev. E
Inhibitory feedback required for network burst responses to communication but not to prey stimuli
Nature
Oscillatory activity in electrosensory neurons increases with the spatial correlation of the stochastic input stimulus
Phys. Rev. Lett.
How spike generation mechanisms determine the neuronal response to fluctuating inputs
J. Neurosci.
Spiking Neuron Models
Cited by (44)
An integrate-and-fire approach to Ca<sup>2+</sup> signaling. Part I: Renewal model
2023, Biophysical JournalTowards understanding the effect of leak in Spiking Neural Networks
2021, NeurocomputingEstimation of biophysical parameters in a neuron model under random fluctuations
2018, Applied Mathematics and ComputationCitation Excerpt :Later a stochastic diffusive leaky integrate-and-fire model for a slowly fluctuating signal was examined by Picchini et al. [11] to estimate the biophysical parameters. It was shown and analytically derived that the firing rate and CV uniquely determine the parameters of the perfect, leaky and quadratic integrate and fire neuron models [12]. A method has been proposed by Tyukin et al. [13] from in vitro experiments, how to recover the system variables and parameters of canonical neural oscillators.
Detecting a periodic signal by a population of spiking neurons in the weakly nonlinear response regime
2023, European Physical Journal EFokker–Planck approach to neural networks and to decision problems: A unique method for stochastic models in computational and cognitive neuroscience
2021, European Physical Journal: Special Topics