Cargando…

An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons

Two mathematical models are part of the foundation of Computational neurophysiology; (a) the Cable equation is used to compute the membrane potential of neurons, and, (b) volume-conductor theory describes the extracellular potential around neurons. In the standard procedure for computing extracellul...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tveito, Aslak, Jæger, Karoline H., Lines, Glenn T., Paszkowski, Łukasz, Sundnes, Joakim, Edwards, Andrew G., Māki-Marttunen, Tuomo, Halnes, Geir, Einevoll, Gaute T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28484385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2017.00027
_version_ 1783231129535381504
author Tveito, Aslak
Jæger, Karoline H.
Lines, Glenn T.
Paszkowski, Łukasz
Sundnes, Joakim
Edwards, Andrew G.
Māki-Marttunen, Tuomo
Halnes, Geir
Einevoll, Gaute T.
author_facet Tveito, Aslak
Jæger, Karoline H.
Lines, Glenn T.
Paszkowski, Łukasz
Sundnes, Joakim
Edwards, Andrew G.
Māki-Marttunen, Tuomo
Halnes, Geir
Einevoll, Gaute T.
author_sort Tveito, Aslak
collection PubMed
description Two mathematical models are part of the foundation of Computational neurophysiology; (a) the Cable equation is used to compute the membrane potential of neurons, and, (b) volume-conductor theory describes the extracellular potential around neurons. In the standard procedure for computing extracellular potentials, the transmembrane currents are computed by means of (a) and the extracellular potentials are computed using an explicit sum over analytical point-current source solutions as prescribed by volume conductor theory. Both models are extremely useful as they allow huge simplifications of the computational efforts involved in computing extracellular potentials. However, there are more accurate, though computationally very expensive, models available where the potentials inside and outside the neurons are computed simultaneously in a self-consistent scheme. In the present work we explore the accuracy of the classical models (a) and (b) by comparing them to these more accurate schemes. The main assumption of (a) is that the ephaptic current can be ignored in the derivation of the Cable equation. We find, however, for our examples with stylized neurons, that the ephaptic current is comparable in magnitude to other currents involved in the computations, suggesting that it may be significant—at least in parts of the simulation. The magnitude of the error introduced in the membrane potential is several millivolts, and this error also translates into errors in the predicted extracellular potentials. While the error becomes negligible if we assume the extracellular conductivity to be very large, this assumption is, unfortunately, not easy to justify a priori for all situations of interest.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5401906
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54019062017-05-08 An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons Tveito, Aslak Jæger, Karoline H. Lines, Glenn T. Paszkowski, Łukasz Sundnes, Joakim Edwards, Andrew G. Māki-Marttunen, Tuomo Halnes, Geir Einevoll, Gaute T. Front Comput Neurosci Neuroscience Two mathematical models are part of the foundation of Computational neurophysiology; (a) the Cable equation is used to compute the membrane potential of neurons, and, (b) volume-conductor theory describes the extracellular potential around neurons. In the standard procedure for computing extracellular potentials, the transmembrane currents are computed by means of (a) and the extracellular potentials are computed using an explicit sum over analytical point-current source solutions as prescribed by volume conductor theory. Both models are extremely useful as they allow huge simplifications of the computational efforts involved in computing extracellular potentials. However, there are more accurate, though computationally very expensive, models available where the potentials inside and outside the neurons are computed simultaneously in a self-consistent scheme. In the present work we explore the accuracy of the classical models (a) and (b) by comparing them to these more accurate schemes. The main assumption of (a) is that the ephaptic current can be ignored in the derivation of the Cable equation. We find, however, for our examples with stylized neurons, that the ephaptic current is comparable in magnitude to other currents involved in the computations, suggesting that it may be significant—at least in parts of the simulation. The magnitude of the error introduced in the membrane potential is several millivolts, and this error also translates into errors in the predicted extracellular potentials. While the error becomes negligible if we assume the extracellular conductivity to be very large, this assumption is, unfortunately, not easy to justify a priori for all situations of interest. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5401906/ /pubmed/28484385 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2017.00027 Text en Copyright © 2017 Tveito, Jæger, Lines, Paszkowski, Sundnes, Edwards, Māki-Marttunen, Halnes and Einevoll. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Tveito, Aslak
Jæger, Karoline H.
Lines, Glenn T.
Paszkowski, Łukasz
Sundnes, Joakim
Edwards, Andrew G.
Māki-Marttunen, Tuomo
Halnes, Geir
Einevoll, Gaute T.
An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons
title An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons
title_full An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons
title_fullStr An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons
title_full_unstemmed An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons
title_short An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Classical Models for Computing the Membrane Potential and Extracellular Potential for Neurons
title_sort evaluation of the accuracy of classical models for computing the membrane potential and extracellular potential for neurons
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5401906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28484385
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2017.00027
work_keys_str_mv AT tveitoaslak anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT jægerkarolineh anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT linesglennt anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT paszkowskiłukasz anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT sundnesjoakim anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT edwardsandrewg anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT makimarttunentuomo anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT halnesgeir anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT einevollgautet anevaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT tveitoaslak evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT jægerkarolineh evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT linesglennt evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT paszkowskiłukasz evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT sundnesjoakim evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT edwardsandrewg evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT makimarttunentuomo evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT halnesgeir evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons
AT einevollgautet evaluationoftheaccuracyofclassicalmodelsforcomputingthemembranepotentialandextracellularpotentialforneurons