Abstract
In this report trial-to-trial variations in the synchronized responses of neural networks are explored over time scales of minutes, in ex-vivo large scale cortical networks. We show that sub-second measures of the individual synchronous response, namely—its latency and decay duration, are related to minutes-scale network response dynamics. Network responsiveness is reflected as residency in, or shifting amongst, areas of the latency-decay plane. The different sensitivities of latency and decay durations to synaptic blockers imply that these two measures reflect aspects of inhibitory and excitatory activities. Taken together, the data suggest that trial-to-trial variations in the synchronized responses of neural networks might be related to effective excitation-inhibition ratio being a dynamic variable over time scales of minutes.
Highlights
Evoked transient synchronous activity is acknowledged as significant in both normal and pathological neural conditions (Uhlhaas et al, 2009)
The data were reduced to a series of network spike time-stamps using a threshold-based criterion for identification of synchronous activity
The timescale in the hierarchy is the network spike refractory period, which is the minimal time between two consecutive network spikes, ranging between 1 and 10 s (Robinson et al, 1993; Maeda et al, 1995; Eytan and Marom, 2006)
Summary
Evoked transient synchronous activity is acknowledged as significant in both normal and pathological neural conditions (Uhlhaas et al, 2009). 100 ms), the flavor of a threshold-governed event and a refractory period that lasts several seconds (Slovin et al, 2002; Derdikman et al, 2003; Eytan and Marom, 2006; Gullo et al, 2010; Weihberger et al, 2013) With these properties in mind we adhere to a previously offered terminology and use the name Network Spike (NS) to designate evoked transient synchronous activity (Eytan and Marom, 2006; Shew et al, 2009). These include neuronal and synaptic noise, refractoriness of neuronal and synaptic activities and the context of ongoing activity within which a stimulus is applied (Arieli et al, 1996; Fox et al, 2006; Faisal et al, 2008; Weihberger et al, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
