Cargando…
On the Validity of Neural Mass Models
Modeling the dynamics of neural masses is a common approach in the study of neural populations. Various models have been proven useful to describe a plenitude of empirical observations including self-sustained local oscillations and patterns of distant synchronization. We discuss the extent to which...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7814001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33469424 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2020.581040 |
_version_ | 1783637966455832576 |
---|---|
author | Deschle, Nicolás Ignacio Gossn, Juan Tewarie, Prejaas Schelter, Björn Daffertshofer, Andreas |
author_facet | Deschle, Nicolás Ignacio Gossn, Juan Tewarie, Prejaas Schelter, Björn Daffertshofer, Andreas |
author_sort | Deschle, Nicolás |
collection | PubMed |
description | Modeling the dynamics of neural masses is a common approach in the study of neural populations. Various models have been proven useful to describe a plenitude of empirical observations including self-sustained local oscillations and patterns of distant synchronization. We discuss the extent to which mass models really resemble the mean dynamics of a neural population. In particular, we question the validity of neural mass models if the population under study comprises a mixture of excitatory and inhibitory neurons that are densely (inter-)connected. Starting from a network of noisy leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, we formulated two different population dynamics that both fall into the category of seminal Freeman neural mass models. The derivations contained several mean-field assumptions and time scale separation(s) between membrane and synapse dynamics. Our comparison of these neural mass models with the averaged dynamics of the population reveals bounds in the fraction of excitatory/inhibitory neuron as well as overall network degree for a mass model to provide adequate estimates. For substantial parameter ranges, our models fail to mimic the neural network's dynamics proper, be that in de-synchronized or in (high-frequency) synchronized states. Only around the onset of low-frequency synchronization our models provide proper estimates of the mean potential dynamics. While this shows their potential for, e.g., studying resting state dynamics obtained by encephalography with focus on the transition region, we must accept that predicting the more general dynamic outcome of a neural network via its mass dynamics requires great care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7814001 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78140012021-01-18 On the Validity of Neural Mass Models Deschle, Nicolás Ignacio Gossn, Juan Tewarie, Prejaas Schelter, Björn Daffertshofer, Andreas Front Comput Neurosci Neuroscience Modeling the dynamics of neural masses is a common approach in the study of neural populations. Various models have been proven useful to describe a plenitude of empirical observations including self-sustained local oscillations and patterns of distant synchronization. We discuss the extent to which mass models really resemble the mean dynamics of a neural population. In particular, we question the validity of neural mass models if the population under study comprises a mixture of excitatory and inhibitory neurons that are densely (inter-)connected. Starting from a network of noisy leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, we formulated two different population dynamics that both fall into the category of seminal Freeman neural mass models. The derivations contained several mean-field assumptions and time scale separation(s) between membrane and synapse dynamics. Our comparison of these neural mass models with the averaged dynamics of the population reveals bounds in the fraction of excitatory/inhibitory neuron as well as overall network degree for a mass model to provide adequate estimates. For substantial parameter ranges, our models fail to mimic the neural network's dynamics proper, be that in de-synchronized or in (high-frequency) synchronized states. Only around the onset of low-frequency synchronization our models provide proper estimates of the mean potential dynamics. While this shows their potential for, e.g., studying resting state dynamics obtained by encephalography with focus on the transition region, we must accept that predicting the more general dynamic outcome of a neural network via its mass dynamics requires great care. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7814001/ /pubmed/33469424 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2020.581040 Text en Copyright © 2021 Deschle, Ignacio Gossn, Tewarie, Schelter and Daffertshofer. 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) and the copyright owner(s) 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 Deschle, Nicolás Ignacio Gossn, Juan Tewarie, Prejaas Schelter, Björn Daffertshofer, Andreas On the Validity of Neural Mass Models |
title | On the Validity of Neural Mass Models |
title_full | On the Validity of Neural Mass Models |
title_fullStr | On the Validity of Neural Mass Models |
title_full_unstemmed | On the Validity of Neural Mass Models |
title_short | On the Validity of Neural Mass Models |
title_sort | on the validity of neural mass models |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7814001/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33469424 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2020.581040 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT deschlenicolas onthevalidityofneuralmassmodels AT ignaciogossnjuan onthevalidityofneuralmassmodels AT tewarieprejaas onthevalidityofneuralmassmodels AT schelterbjorn onthevalidityofneuralmassmodels AT daffertshoferandreas onthevalidityofneuralmassmodels |