* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Noise and Coupling Affect Signal Detection and Bursting in a
Survey
Document related concepts
Optogenetics wikipedia , lookup
Recurrent neural network wikipedia , lookup
Signal transduction wikipedia , lookup
Multielectrode array wikipedia , lookup
Neuropsychopharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Types of artificial neural networks wikipedia , lookup
Functional magnetic resonance imaging wikipedia , lookup
Stimulus (physiology) wikipedia , lookup
Development of the nervous system wikipedia , lookup
Synaptic gating wikipedia , lookup
Biological neuron model wikipedia , lookup
Feature detection (nervous system) wikipedia , lookup
Metastability in the brain wikipedia , lookup
Channelrhodopsin wikipedia , lookup
Nervous system network models wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
J Neurophysiol 88: 2598 –2611, 2002; 10.1152/jn.00223.2002. Noise and Coupling Affect Signal Detection and Bursting in a Simulated Physiological Neural Network WILLIAM C. STACEY1,2 AND DOMINIQUE M. DURAND1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University; and 2Department of Neurology, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio 44106 1 Received 27 March 2002; accepted in final form 9 July 2002 influence signal detection in this system (Gluckman et al. 1996, 1998; Stacey and Durand 2000) using endogenous noise sources (Stacey and Durand 2001). Even subtle changes above resting noise variance can improve the ability of neurons to detect subthreshold signals. The influence of noise on signal detection in CA1 is therefore quite significant and relevant to information processing in the brain. The SR relation between signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and noise for a neuron is given in Eq. 1. The SNR is 0 without added noise, rises quickly to a maximum peak with the addition of noise, and gradually decreases to 1 (D ⫽ noise intensity, ⑀ ⫽ signal strength, and ⌬U ⫽ threshold barrier height) as noise overcomes the output 冉 冊 ⑀ ⌬U ⫺⌬U/D e D 2 SNR⬀ (1) The effect of noise on detection of subthreshold signals in threshold-detecting systems, or stochastic resonance (SR), has been investigated in several physiological and nonphysiological systems. SR theory was originally developed to describe a single bistable element (Benzi et al. 1981; Dykman et al. 1995; Moss et al. 1994) and was later expanded to describe a monostable system like a neuron (Stocks et al. 1993; Wiesenfeld et al. 1994). Both computer simulations and in vitro experiments have been used to demonstrate SR behavior in a number of neural systems (Braun et al. 1994; Bulsara et al. 1991; Collins et al. 1996; Douglass et al. 1993; Levin and Miller 1996; Pei et al. 1996; Russell et al. 1999). Recent studies in the CA1 layer of the hippocampus have indicated that SR can function to Examples of this curve are presented in several of the later figures in this paper. SR has been found to have novel properties on larger numbers of elements. SR in an array of elements with a summed output generates an increased SNR to a broader range of noise (Chialvo et al. 1997; Collins et al. 1995), although this simulated finding was not found experimentally in cochlear nerves (Morse and Roper 2000). When the elements are coupled, as in array-enhanced SR (AESR), the signal detection improvement can vary depending on how the coupling is performed (Inchiosa and Bulsara 1995a,b; Kanamaru et al. 2001; Lindner et al. 1995; Locher et al. 1996). In this paper, we have chosen a coupling source to simulate electrical connections between closely neighboring cells (see METHODS). AESR has important implications in the nervous system, because it can make a neural network sensitive to a broad range of input signals when noise is present (Stocks and Mannella 2000). Noise alone can produce oscillatory behavior in a single element under certain conditions, an effect closely related to SR (Gang et al. 1993; Lee et al. 1998). Another similar effect occurs in coupled arrays of neural models that are not presented with any periodic signal: they are able to respond with synchronous, near-periodic outputs when noise is added (Hu and Zhou 2000; Pham et al. 1998; Pradines et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2000). These effects have been called coherence resonance (CR) or autonomous SR. Throughout this work, CR is Address for reprint requests: D. M. Durand, Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Neural Engineering Center, Case Western Reserve University, CB Bolton Rm. 3510, 10900 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44106 (E-mail: [email protected]). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked ‘‘advertisement’’ in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. INTRODUCTION 2598 0022-3077/02 $5.00 Copyright © 2002 The American Physiological Society www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 Stacey, William C. and Dominique M. Durand. Noise and coupling affect signal detection and bursting in a simulated physiological neural network. J Neurophysiol 88: 2598 –2611, 2002; 10.1152/jn.00223.2002. Signal detection in the CNS relies on a complex interaction between the numerous synaptic inputs to the detecting cells. Two effects, stochastic resonance (SR) and coherence resonance (CR) have been shown to affect signal detection in arrays of basic neuronal models. Here, an array of simulated hippocampal CA1 neurons was used to test the hypothesis that physiological noise and electrical coupling can interact to modulate signal detection in the CA1 region of the hippocampus. The array was tested using varying levels of coupling and noise with different input signals. Detection of a subthreshold signal in the network improved as the number of detecting cells increased and as coupling was increased as predicted by previous studies in SR; however, the response depended greatly on the noise characteristics present and varied from SR predictions at times. Careful evaluation of noise characteristics may be necessary to form conclusions about the role of SR in complex systems such as physiological neurons. The coupled array fired synchronous, periodic bursts when presented with noise alone. The synchrony of this firing changed as a function of noise and coupling as predicted by CR. The firing was very similar to certain models of epileptiform activity, leading to a discussion of CR as a possible simple model of epilepsy. A single neuron was unable to recruit its neighbors to a periodic signal unless the signal was very close to the synchronous bursting frequency. These findings, when viewed in comparison with physiological parameters in the hippocampus, suggest that both SR and CR can have significant effects on signal processing in vivo. NOISE AND COUPLING EFFECTS IN A NEURAL NETWORK METHODS Synaptic events generating the periodic input signal and random events were simulated using AMPA synapse functions (Destexhe et al. 1998). The amplitude of synaptic events was modulated by changing the maximum conductance (gmax) of the AMPA current. The periodic signal input was positioned on the distal branch of the apical dendrite of each cell and the amplitude adjusted to a subthreshold level (4 nS). The stimulus was a pulse train (Stacey and Durand 2000) of 2.5 Hz except where otherwise noted. At 2.5 Hz, the neurons were able to return to baseline between pulses to avoid any frequencydependent effects of the signal. The signal was applied either to all neurons simultaneously (“global input”) or to one neuron alone (“single input”; Fig. 1B). Noise was added to simulate any synaptic activity that is uncorrelated to the periodic signal. The noise was generated by 55 presynaptic axons, 10 of which contacted between three and nine different CA1 cells as en passant axons (e.g., Fig. 1C), while the remainder made independent connections. The en passant connections were generated randomly and did not cause any significant correlation among the CA1 cells. This connection scheme simulates the connectivity that exists in a rat hippocampal slice (Andersen 1990), where neighboring CA1 cells often receive the same presynaptic signal (Bernard and Wheal 1994). Noise Simulations were performed for two values of maximum conductance (gmax) at the noise synapses: 0.22 and 1 nS. These two values encompass the experimental range of miniature excitatory postsynaptic potentials (minis; gmax ⫽ 0.21–1 nS) (Bekkers and Stevens 1989; Destexhe et al. 1998; McBain and Dingledine 1992; Stricker et al. 1996). Quantal size of random events were Poisson distributed (mean ⫽ 0.3). Noise variance (D, or noise intensity, in Eq. 1) was modulated by changing the mean firing frequency of the noise synapses. The firing of each presynaptic axon, which evoked a synaptic event, was calculated independently by comparing a threshold with a uniform random number generated at each time step (Stacey and Durand 2000). Changing this threshold thus changed the probability of firing at each time step. The characteristics of the synaptic noise current are shown in Fig. 2, which spans the entire range of noise simulated. Noise bandwidth and spectral power increased as expected with increased firing probability. Increasing D increased the mean depolarizing current in a nearly linear fashion. The noise source had some low-pass filtering effects due to the frequency characteristics of the AMPA synapse, but they were present for much higher levels of D than those used in these simulations. Also of note is the different response to noise with gmax ⫽ 0.22 nS versus 1 nS (see DISCUSSION). Noise was locally uncorrelated (Lindner et al. 1995) except the minor effect from synapses connected by en passant axons. There was no time delay between the multiple synapses contacted by the en passant axons. Synaptic noise variance was computed from recordings of the synaptic current. Coupling Coupling between each pair of cells was modeled as an additional voltage controlled current source (I icoupling) in the soma of each cell (Eq. 2). Current effects from all neighboring neurons were summed to produce a single current input at the soma Network simulation 冘 N⫺1 An array of 10 simulated CA1 neurons previously described (Stacey and Durand 2000, 2001) was implemented using NEURON software (Hines 1993). The neurons (Fig. 1A) had membrane parameters derived from experimental data (Table 1) and were identical to each other. Each neuron contained an active soma with one sodium, one calcium, and four active potassium channels (Warman et al. 1994) as well as passive dendrites. Voltage data from the soma and current at the synapses were recorded separately with a sampling rate of 2,000 Hz. J Neurophysiol • VOL i I coupling ⫽ a 䡠 cij共Vj ⫺ Erest兲 共j ⫽ i兲 (2) j⫽0 f C共cij兲 ⫽ 1 Cmax ⫺ 0 all cij ⫽ cji (3) The current amplitude was determined by the driving potential of the coupled neuron (Vj ⫺ Erest) and a coupling weight (cij). The coupling weight, cij, was bidirectional and randomly assigned from the uniform 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 used to describe only the case of a coupled network of neurons and autonomous SR that of a single neuron. In CR, the ability of noise to produce a synchronous, periodic response in the system is dependent on the noise characteristics and coupling between the neurons. When analyzed in the frequency domain, a sharp peak is produced as the system becomes more periodic, which can be used as a measure of synchrony. The synchrony follows a bell-shaped curve as noise intensity increases (Neiman et al. 1997). While SR in a single element has been verified experimentally using several different models, experimental evidence demonstrating the presence or utility of AESR or CR in physiological neural systems is lacking. Although several different mathematical neural models have been used to investigate AESR and CR, even simultaneously (Lindner and Schimansky-Geier 1999, 2000), there has been little correlation of the effects with physiological parameters such as membrane dynamics, channels, and voltage. Rationalization and evaluation of the simulated data in light of its physiological ramifications has been difficult without these analyses or experimental verification. It is a major goal of this work to provide such correlations to physiological data by using a neural model that has been verified experimentally and that utilizes cellular parameters. The beneficial effect of noise on signal detection has intriguing implications in the brain. Neurons such as CA1 pyramidal cells in the hippocampus are responsible for integration of signals from many different sources (Andersen 1990). Signal detection in these cells is complicated by the presence of noise (Bekkers et al. 1990; Destexhe and Paré 1999; Kamondi et al. 1998; Sayer et al. 1989;), the large number of synapses, and dendritic attenuation (Spruston et al. 1993), a situation that makes them ideal candidates for physiological SR (Stacey and Durand 2000, 2001). It is quite possible that AESR and CR also have physiological effects in the CA1 layer due to the network organization. The presence of these phenomena in the brain would have broad implications for normal signal detection as well as for abnormal detection such as epileptogenesis. In this paper, we seek to analyze the effects of noise and coupling on signal detection in an array of simulated CA1 cells. This simulation is based on a detailed implementation of specific cellular parameters in CA1 cells (Warman et al. 1994) that have been verified experimentally (Stacey and Durand 2000, 2001). Noise and coupling have been added according to physiological conditions and have been carefully verified with experimental data. The model is used to test the hypothesis that noise and coupling can work synergistically to improve detection of a signal in the CA1 layer of the rat hippocampus through the effects of AESR and CR. 2599 2600 W. C. STACEY AND D. M. DURAND interval (0 3 Cmax), as shown by the probability density function in Eq. 3. In other words, each cell “i” received a coupling current from each of the nine cells “j”, and the weight of coupling current was randomized on a scale determined by the value of Cmax. The coupling strength was multiplied by the arbitrary constant “a” to allow simple implementation in NEURON. The coupled current caused the potential to move in the same direction as the driving potential. This method produced an instantaneous change in somatic current that was dependent on the voltage change of another cell, which is similar to TABLE 1. CA1 model specifications Dendrite Rm, ⍀cm2 Cm, F/cm2 Soma Rm, ⍀cm2 Cm, F/cm2 Ri, ⍀cm Dimensions Soma Basal 1° Apical Auxiliary 2° apical Main 2° apical 14,000 2 28,000 1 150 Diam (m) L (m) Segments 15 4 3.5 3.13 1 20 250 400 400 400 1 5 10 5 5 0.011 0.259 0.443 0.468 0.828 Parameters for the CA1 model. The model architecture is identical to that in (Stacey and Durand 2000). The implementation differed in that noise variance was modulated by changing the mean frequency of firing. J Neurophysiol • VOL physiological forms of electrical coupling (see DISCUSSION). The distribution did not take into account any spatial effects suggested by the linear schematization in Fig. 1, B and C. The coupling mechanism did not generate any shunting between the cells that would diminish the signal strength (Lindner et al. 1995). Signal analysis The membrane voltages from all neurons were summed to produce a network voltage response: Vsum ⫽ Vi (Collins et al. 1995). These n data were mean-detrended (Vsum(rest) ⫽ 0 mV) to remove the resting voltage contribution from each cell. Any subthreshold voltages (Vsum ⱕ 70 mV) were then masked to a value of 0 while preserving the amplitude of suprathreshold responses. In this manner, the only nonzero data contained in the output was from action potentials and preserved their net amplitude above resting voltage to determine when multiple cells were firing. The resulting output time series was used to obtain the power spectrum (Wiesenfeld and Moss 1995) using the PSD function in Matlab (50,000-point Hanning window; 45,000-point overlap). The power at the input signal frequency (2.5 Hz) was divided by the baseband power (noise) in the region near 2.5 Hz to obtain the SNR. All data in this paper are averages of three independent simulations. The SNR obtained from each value of noise variance was plotted and used as data for fitting to the SR equation (Stacey and Durand 2000). In multiple-trace plots the SD is omitted from some traces for clarity, but in all cases the omitted deviations were comparable to those included in the figure and quite small. The values for ⑀ and ⌬U (Eq. 1) obtained from a least-square error fit were used to compare the SR responses. For calculation of coherence, the output of a network presented 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • 冘 www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 FIG. 1. CA1 model and network organization. A: schematic of an individual CA1 cell, showing positions of noise sources (stars) and subthreshold signal (S). Parameters of the neural segments are in Table 1. B: linear representation of the network, showing how the global signal source axon contacted all 10 cells, and the single source only contacted the cell at the far left, the “signal cell.” The network was implemented as a randomly arranged cluster: the spatial organization implied by the schematization was not included in the model. C: implementation of the network. Diagram shows 2 of the en passant noise axons that contacted multiple cells. Membrane voltage of each cell was summed to produce the output of the network. D: calculation of synchrony. Power spectrum of the system output produced frequency spikes when coherence resonance (CR) was present. Synchrony () was evaluated for each simulation independently (Eq. 4). NOISE AND COUPLING EFFECTS IN A NEURAL NETWORK 2601 FIG. 2. Noise characteristics. A: mean was calculated for the current at 1 AMPA noise synapse for the range of noise variances used in the simulations. The noise source behaved differently to the 2 noise signals due to characteristics of the AMPA synapse. Higher levels of variance were required for the 1-nS simulations (see RESULTS). B: power spectrum: data for 0.22 nS noise source with 2 mean firing frequencies. Bandwidth and spectral power increased for the 400-Hz case. Raw data: current from the synapse for each frequency. Trace is 0.5 s.  ⫽ h 䡠 p/⌬ (4) RESULTS The array of neurons was configured in four basic forms. First, the number of neurons in the network was varied without any coupling as the subthreshold signal and noise were presented to all neurons simultaneously. Second, with 10 neurons, coupling was varied as all neurons received the signal and noise again. These two configurations were designed to test the effect of varying coupling and the number of neurons on detection of a global signal. Third, the second simulation was repeated with signal removed from nine of the neurons. This configuration tested the ability of noise and coupling to affect recruitment of a network to a signal present at only one cell. Results were first obtained for these three configurations using noise with gmax ⫽ 0.22 nS and then repeated for 1 nS. Fourth, the signal was removed entirely and the 10-neuron network was presented with varying degrees of coupling and noise (0.22-nS source). This configuration was used to investigate oscillatory behavior that was present in many of the previous simulations. Effect of multiple uncoupled neurons on subthreshold signal detection The network was first used to test the effect of the number of detecting neurons on detection of subthreshold signals. Simulations with 1, 3, 5, and 10 neurons were configured with global inputs without coupling. Noise with mini-amplitude of 0.22 nS was applied. Several levels of noise variance were added to the system along with the subthreshold signal. The response shows that noise can improve the network’s detection of the subthreshold signal (Fig. 3A). As the number of neurons J Neurophysiol • VOL increased, the amplitude of the response increased and detection of the input signal was improved (Fig. 3B). Increasing noise variance produced the typical SR curve and peak SNR increased as more cells were added (Fig. 3C). Addition of noise to the system produced peak SNR values of 174, 245, and 467 for 1, 3, and 10 cells, respectively. SNR for 5 cells were between those for 3 and 10 cells at all noise levels (data not shown). For variance ⬎15 pA2, the SNR was below the level predicted by SR. This was due to repetitive firing (oscillations) of the network present at high noise variance, which increased the background noise and will be discussed later. The center of the SR peak did not change with the number of neurons, but the amplitude varied with N. The change corresponded to an increasing value for the signal strength (⑀) in the SR equation (Eq. 1). These results show that arrays of uncoupled neurons, even as small as three, have an increased ability to improve detection of a global, subthreshold signal for low noise levels, but detection can be poorer than predicted by SR theory at high noise variance for noise with quantal amplitude on the low end of physiological range. Effect of coupling on signal detection The network was then used to test the effects of electrical coupling between cells when all neurons received the subthreshold input. Coupling was added and modulated between cells in the 10-neuron array with the same noise source as before. The network was tested with the global input configuration with four levels of Cmax: 0, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5. These levels were chosen to span a spectrum of physiological coupling. The maximum coupling (cij ⫽ 0.5) produced a 0.5-mV depolarization due to an action potential in a coupled cell, which was well within the physiological range (see DISCUSSION). The effect of different coupling levels on the network’s detection of a subthreshold signal in the presence of noise is shown in Fig. 4A. For noise (10.2 pA2) that produced peak SNR, in the uncoupled network the signal was detected but the latency between the first and last cell to fire was often ⬎20 ms (first trace). In the coupled network, there was a more coherent response: all 10 neurons tended to fire within a 10-ms span 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 with noise but no periodic signal was evaluated. The power spectrum of each simulation was computed as described above and then analyzed individually. Noise-induced synchrony appeared as a spike in the power spectrum. Synchrony from this resonant peak was measured using the coherence factor  in Eq. 4, where h is the height of the peak, p is the frequency of the peak, and ⌬ is the width at half-peak height (Gang et al. 1993) 2602 W. C. STACEY AND D. M. DURAND coupling (SNR ⫽ 7.3 for Cmax ⫽ 0.5 and 102 with Cmax ⫽ 0) because the signal was overcome by the coherent oscillations. These results indicate that coupling can greatly affect signal detection and SR in the network. As the coupling rises, the network becomes increasingly more sensitive to noise— both to improve detection with low noise variance and hamper detection at higher variance. Effect of noise and coupling on signal detection by a single neuron in a network SIGNAL DETECTION OF NETWORK WITH LOW NOISE VARIANCE. FIG. 3. Effect of number of cells in the network. A: top: raw data showing the trace of a single cell with a subthreshold signal. Bottom: input signal. When noise was applied, the signal was detected. B: raw data. As in A, there was no response before the addition of noise (data not shown). As the number of cells increased, there was a concurrent increase in both the number of action potentials in phase with the signal and random action potentials. However, the increased power in phase with the signal was stronger, leading to an improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Note that the output was the sum of the array, so multiple concurrent action potentials appear as spikes ⬎100 mV. Trace is for 5 s of data. C: effect of number of cells on signal detection. Data are fit to the stochastic resonance (SR) equation. Increasing the number of detecting elements changed the peak without changing the resonant center. All data strayed below SR theory at high noise. Bars indicate 1 SD for the 10-cell data. Comparable bars on the other data were removed for clarity. (second trace). With high levels of noise (17 pA2), extraneous action potentials were generated, an effect worsened by increased coupling (third and fourth traces). Thus small levels of coupling and noise improved the signal detection, but as both increased the network fired clustered action potentials that overwhelmed the input signal. Results from 0.1 and 0.3 coupling levels (not shown) had a similar relationship, with values lying between the data shown for Cmax ⫽ 0 and 0.5. The SNR plots show the effect of coupling on signal detection (Fig. 4B). Coupling significantly increased the network sensitivity to noise, as shown by an increased SNR at lower noise levels and a sharper decline in SNR after peak detection. The peak SNR for maximum coupling (Cmax ⫽ 0.5) was significantly higher than that with zero coupling (1,208 vs. 467) and occurred at lower noise (5.1 vs. 13.6 pA2). The coupling therefore caused a shift in the SR curve up and to the left (decreased ⌬U, increased ⑀). However, with higher noise variance (17 pA2), the SNR was greatly decreased for higher J Neurophysiol • VOL The network response to the single input at low noise levels is shown in Fig. 5A. For low-to-moderate coupling (Cmax ⱕ 0.9), the network did not synchronize to the signal. The signal cell was the only cell able to detect the input at low noise levels. Increased coupling improved detection at the signal cell (Fig. 5A, first and second traces). The SNR plots (Fig. 5B) show that increased coupling shifted the SR curves up and to the left, corresponding to improved detection at these low noise levels. For comparison, the response of a lone cell to the same noise levels is included. These results show that even small coupling levels are able to improve a cell’s ability to detect a subthreshold signal in a noisy system through SR. SIGNAL DETECTION OF NETWORK WITH HIGH NOISE VARIANCE. Whereas the network’s improved sensitivity to noise was beneficial for low noise, it greatly diminished SNR at higher levels. Figure 5, C and D, shows that increased coupling produced oscillations that corrupt signal detection and depart from the SR equation. For all levels of coupling tested, the SNR was once more below the predicted SR value at high noise. An additional effect occurred independent of noise oscillations: the added noise from the nine other cells also decreased SNR. For this reason, detection with zero coupling was worse than for a single cell as noise increased. The driving cell is therefore able to use coupling to enhance its own signal detection at low noise, but is normally unable to overcome the additional noise and the oscillations to recruit the other cells. Effect of noise and coupling on recruitment in the network The same configuration was also examined for the ability of the single cell to recruit its neighbors to the subthreshold signal. Recruitment was defined as more than one cell firing in response to the input signal and producing an increased SNR. Under most circumstances, there was no significant recruitment in this network, as seen by the action potentials firing independently and the low SNR values in Fig. 5. As in the 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 The simulation was then performed with the single input configuration (Fig. 1B) to test the hypothesis that a single cell can detect a subthreshold signal and recruit its neighboring cells through the combined effects of SR and coupling. Values of Cmax ⫽ 0, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 2.5, and 3 were chosen to encompass all levels of physiological coupling in the system: from 0 coupling to 1:1 coupling of action potentials for cij ⬎ 2.5. The maximum depolarization without transmitting an action potential was 1.8 mV (cij ⫽ 2.5). Note that, due to randomization, the values of cij for Cmax ⫽ 3 were usually ⬍2.5. This situation is representative of a single neuron receiving a signal surrounded by several quiescent neurons with a wide range of electrical coupling (see DISCUSSION). NOISE AND COUPLING EFFECTS IN A NEURAL NETWORK 2603 previous simulation, noise from the other nine cells and oscillations prevented the cells from synchronizing to the input. There was only one combination of noise and coupling tested in which the 10 neurons synchronized to the input signal (Fig. 6, A and B). This occurred with high coupling (Cmax ⫽ 2.5) and relatively low noise variance (1.36 pA2). Interestingly, in this model, this noise level corresponds to the physiological baseline noise in a hippocampal slice (Sayer et al. 1989; Wahl et al. 1997). The neural array was very excitable at this combination of coupling and noise: it oscillated at about 2 Hz without a periodic signal present (Fig. 6A, top trace). This response caused a low-amplitude, broad hump in the power spectrum centered at ⬃2 Hz, whereas with addition of a 2.5-Hz signal, a sharp spectral peak appeared at exactly 2.5 Hz. It is important to note that signal frequency had no effect on signal detection in any simulation up to this point. Even when the periodic signal was raised above threshold, there was still no recruitment except at this specific combination (data not shown). Oscillations corrupted the signal frequency at the next noise level (Fig. 6A, third trace). Therefore in this network, a single neuron cannot recruit the other cells unless they are very excitable and prone to fire randomly near the input frequency. The interesting ability of the periodic signal to recruit the excitable network was further investigated by using a 6-Hz input signal. This frequency was chosen after noting that the network oscillated near 5.8 Hz with 17 pA2 noise and Cmax ⫽ 0.9 without a periodic signal (Fig. 6, C and D). As predicted above, the 6-Hz signal was able to synchronize the network quite well. However, synchronization only occurred at the specific combination of coupling and noise, demonstrated by the unusual SNR plot. As with the prior example, the network was recruitable only when it was very excitable and prone to J Neurophysiol • VOL fire at a mean frequency just below that of the periodic driving signal. These results suggest that the network can be tuned to detect, or be recruited by, certain periodic signals by adjustment of coupling and noise. Effects of changing gmax of the noise input The model was used to test the hypothesis that noise produced by minis of different quantal amplitude affects signal detection differently. The three preceding simulations were all repeated using noise mini amplitude of 1 nS. Because the mean amplitude of noise events was higher, lower frequencies were required to produce the same noise variance compared with 0.22-nS noise events (see DISCUSSION). There were differences noted for all three instances when compared with the lower amplitude simulations. CHANGING NUMBER OF UNCOUPLED NEURONS. Increasing the number of uncoupled detecting neurons increased the peak SNR with N as in the previous case (Fig. 7A compared with 3C). However, compared with the 0.22-nS simulations, the improvement in signal detection was not as pronounced. The peak SNR was much smaller for 1 (13), 5 (79), and 10 (85) cells. In addition, more noise variance was necessary to reach peak detection, an effect that occurred for all simulations in this section (note different x axis scale in Fig. 7 compared to Figs. 3– 6). However, the SNR to the right of the peak followed SR predictions more closely because the noise did not produce as many oscillations. Increasing coupling with 10 neurons and a global input improved overall signal detection (Fig. 7B compare with 4B), but the effect was less pro- CHANGING COUPLING IN 10 NEURONS. 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 FIG. 4. Effect of coupling in 10 cells with a global subthreshold signal. A: raw data with a global signal for noise of 10.2 and 17 nA2 and 2 coupling levels. At higher noise (17 nA2), the oscillations overwhelmed the signal. Coupling synchronized the network response, making the network elements fire closer together (squares). Signals detected amid the noise in the uncoupled network (stars). Trace is for 5 s of data. B: SNR for various levels of coupling. Data are fitted to the SR equation. Coupling improved detection for low noise and corrupted it for high noise. 2604 W. C. STACEY AND D. M. DURAND nounced than with 0.22-nS minis. Again, the peak SNR was lower with 1-nS minis (162 for Cmax ⫽ 0.5), and more noise variance was required to reach peak SNR. There was much less shift of the curve on both sides of the peak, showing that the sensitivity to both low and high levels of noise was not as pronounced. Ten coupled neurons and a single input cell were extremely sensitive to quantal size of the noise source. The network responded poorly to the single input under all circumstances—the SNR never exceeded 10, was maximal with 0 coupling, and had worse signal detection than a single cell (Fig. 7C, compare with Figs. 5, B and C, and 6B). The nine neighboring neurons were not recruited by the signal cell but rather began to fire in response to the noise. With large RECRUITMENT TO A SINGLE INPUT. J Neurophysiol • VOL amplitude noise events, therefore, this system was unable to show any significant form of recruitment. High noise variance evokes an intrinsic frequency in a single cell In many simulations described above, high levels of noise produced SNR below the values estimated by the SR curve, particularly with noise generated by 0.22-nS minis. The diminished SNR was due to spontaneous, repetitive firing of neurons generated by the noise. A single neuron begins to fire repetitively when noise is raised above a certain threshold and the cell switches from Poisson-distributed shot noise (Bekkers and Stevens 1989; Brown et al. 1979; Cox and Lewis 1996) to near-periodic firing in a phase transition (Fig. 8). In this model 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 FIG. 5. SR and coupling effects for a single detecting cell. A: raw data. Top: poor detection with low noise and 0 coupling. Middle: signal cell had greatly improved detection with coupling ⫽ 0.9. Bottom: input. Traces are for 5 s of data. Power spectra. Top: 2.5-Hz spike is present, but SNR is small. Bottom: SNR is larger with 0.9 coupling. Arrow: input frequency of 2.5 Hz. This and all power spectra in following figures are in logarithmic scale (square millivolts per hertz). B: SNR for low noise levels. For coupling ⬍2.5, SNR increased with increasing coupling. Data for 0 and 0.9 coupling are fit to SR equation (0 coupling: dashed line; 0.9 coupling: solid line; fit included data from C). SNR of data shown in A (square). C: SNR for higher noise levels. Coupling decreased signal detection as oscillations appeared. SNR for an uncoupled network was below that of a single cell due to noise from the other 9 cells. SR equation fits are included for the response of a lone cell (dotted line) as well as 0 and 0.9 coupling. SNR of data in D (square). D: raw data. Top: detection without coupling was similar to that in a single cell until the other 9 cells began to fire. Middle: noise oscillations corrupt detection with 0.9 coupling. Bottom: input. Traces are 5 s. Power spectra. Top: SNR is high without coupling. Bottom: signal frequency absent. Oscillations produce frequency hump approximately 4 Hz. NOISE AND COUPLING EFFECTS IN A NEURAL NETWORK 2605 using the 0.22-nS noise source, the phase transition occurred between 17 and 26 pA2 noise variance and began at a frequency of ⬃4 Hz. This mean intrinsic frequency increased and became more discrete (a sharper spike in the frequency domain) with increasing noise variance. The response to a DC current is included for comparison. These results are similar to those found for autonomous SR in simpler neuron models (Gang et al. 1993; Lee et al. 1998). The physiological noise source in this model had a net depolarizing effect, but the neural response herein is comparable to previous work with zero mean noise (see DISCUSSION). No long-term accommodation effects occur because this model was designed to monitor detection of individual signals and did not include the effects of slower channels such as the afterhyperpolarization (AHP) potassium channel (Warman et al. 1994). This behavior of a single neuron plays an important role when large amounts of low-amplitude noise are present, especially when the neuron is coupled to other cells. J Neurophysiol • VOL Noise and coupling contributions to bursting The repetitive firing in a single cell was also present in the network and created oscillatory behavior at high noise levels. This effect was enhanced by coupling. The network was used to test the hypothesis that noise and electrical coupling combine to produce synchronous bursts similar to those generated by low calcium preparations (Perez Velasquez et al. 1994). Ten cells were connected with various levels of coupling as noise (0.22-nS source) was added to the system with no periodic signal input. The network response for varying coupling and noise is shown in Fig. 9. With no coupling, all 10 cells fire asynchronously. For very small amounts of coupling (Cmax ⫽ 0.1), the response was asynchronous for low noise (17 pA2), but increasing the noise (136 pA2) synchronized the network (Fig. 9A). This level of coupling is very small, producing ⬍0.01% change in neighboring cells (measured as ⌬Vm(cell A)/ ⌬Vm(cell B)). For higher levels of coupling, even baseline noise 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 FIG. 6. Recruitment of the excitable network with high coupling. A: raw data (2.5 coupling). Top: without signal, the network fired near 2 Hz. Middle: with signal added, the network became more periodic and fired at 2.5 Hz. Bottom: at higher noise levels, the network fired faster than 2.5 Hz. Traces are 5 s. Power spectra. Top: approximately 2 Hz firing. Middle: sharp peak at 2.5 Hz. Bottom: sharp peak at approximately 4.8 Hz. Signal frequency is buried in the noise. B: same data as Fig. 5, stressing disparity in response to 1.36 and 3.7 pA2 noise with 2.5 coupling. These data could not be feasibly fit to the SR equation. SR fit for single cell (dotted line). SNR of data in bottom 2 traces of A (squares). C: raw data. Response to noise (17 nA2) without signal (top) and with 6-Hz signal (bottom) with Cmax ⫽ 0.9. Trace is for 1.5 s of data. Power spectra. Top: mean frequency ⫽ 5.8 Hz. Bottom: frequency peak at 6 Hz. Input frequency of 6 Hz (arrow). D: SNR response to 6-Hz signal. The odd spike in 0.9 coupling occurs where the noise oscillations would be near 5.8 Hz. In this condition the network was tuned to detect a 6-Hz signal. 2606 W. C. STACEY AND D. M. DURAND levels (1.7 pA2) produced synchrony (Fig. 9B). The amount of synchrony (see Fig. 1D) for each combination of coupling and noise is shown in Fig. 9C. The maximum synchrony occurred for Cmax ⫽ 2.5 (the highest simulated) for 170 pA2. In all cases the synchrony dropped as noise increased beyond 170 pA2. Burst frequency was dependent on noise variance but not coupling levels (Fig. 9D). These results agree with previous simulations of CR (see DISCUSSION). Because of the physiological design of the simu- lation, these data also provide insight into the role that this form of CR can play in a true neural system. Analysis of the CR profile in light of physiology demonstrates two key conclusions about this system. First, the network will begin to synchronize and fire even at resting noise levels (1.7 pA2) if coupling is increased sufficiently. A single cell will not fire at this noise level, requiring over 15 times higher noise variance to fire periodically in response to noise (26 pA2, see Fig. 8). The coupling makes the system much more susceptible to noise FIG. 8. Response of a single cell to increasing noise Raw data. First: low noise produced random action potentials. Second: increasing noise produced near-periodic firing. Third: as variance increased, firing became more periodic and faster. Fourth: response to DC for comparison, 5-s traces. Power spectra. First: no appreciable frequency spikes for shot noise. Second: frequency humps occur at ⬃4 Hz. Third: spikes become more discrete and more powerful for higher noise. Fourth: discrete spikes of DC response. J Neurophysiol • VOL 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 FIG. 7. Effect of changing amplitude of noise events. A: effect of changing number of uncoupled detecting cells with 1-nS noise source (compare with Fig. 3). Data followed SR equation very well. Increasing N increased peak SNR. More noise variance was required to produce SR. B: effect of coupling on 10 cells and global signal source (compare with Fig. 4). SNR was improved for low noise and diminished at high noise with increasing coupling, although not as much as in Fig. 4. More noise variance was required for SR. C: SNR plot: inability of network to recruit (see Figs. 5 and 6). SNR ⬍10 indicates inability to detect input well under any condition. Response of a single cell was better than all coupling levels. Data point for raw data (square). Raw data: data producing maximum SNR had multiple random action potentials from other 9 cells. Traces are 5 s. NOISE AND COUPLING EFFECTS IN A NEURAL NETWORK 2607 oscillations, causing bursts even at baseline noise. Second, the network can produce similar synchrony for many combinations of coupling and noise. This phenomenon can be observed as the isosynchronous topological clines in Fig. 9C, moving diagonally from high coupling/low noise to low coupling/high noise. Therefore a system with low coupling can potentially produce “high-coupled” synchrony merely by increasing the noise in the system. DISCUSSION Choice of coupling mechanism Coupling between CA1 cells can take the form of synaptic connections or electrical coupling. Synaptic connections, which have large amplitude and measurable delay, are very sparse between CA1 neurons with a probability of connection of 1/130 (Bernard and Wheal 1994) and require very large networks to implement (Traub et al. 1999). In addition, they also include inhibitory connections, which would introduce an added degree of complexity and be difficult to treat as an intrinsic property of the system without more precise in vitro data. Electrical coupling can take the form of gap junctions or ephaptic interactions, both of which are basic components of J Neurophysiol • VOL the CA1 layer (Andrews et al. 1982; Jefferys 1995; MacVicar and Dudek 1981; Taylor and Dudek 1982; Vigmond et al. 1997). These two types of electrical coupling have quite similar effects. Both types allow bidirectional signals. The delay for ephaptic connections and gap junctions is very small (Traub et al. 1985). Both can also be involved in epileptiform activity when increased (Dudek et al. 1986; Jefferys 1994; Perez Velazquez and Carlen 2000). In the model presented here, both types were combined into a general, delay-free current source. The highest coupling levels simulated caused a depolarization of ⬍2 mV in response to an action potential in a coupled cell. This depolarization is comparable with previous recordings of electrical coupling (Taylor and Dudek 1982; Vigmond et al. 1997). High levels of coupling and noise evoked repetitive bursts of action potentials comparable with that in highly coupled epilepsy models (Jensen and Yaari 1997; Perez Velazquez et al. 1994; Schweitzer et al. 1992). Epileptiform activity has been linked to increased electrical coupling (Dudek et al. 1986; Jefferys 1994; Lee et al. 1995; Perez Velazquez and Carlen 2000). The normal physiological range of coupling is clearly below the level that causes constant bursting, but can be increased by effects such as osmolarity changes (Schwartzkroin et al. 1998), and low Ca2⫹ (Bikson et al. 1999; Haas and 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 FIG. 9. Noise oscillations and synchrony. A: raw data (0.1 coupling). First: no response to low noise. Second: cells fired asynchronously. Third: cells synchronized even at this low coupling level with high noise, 1-s traces. Power spectra. Second: no discrete frequency. Third: frequency hump at ⬃7 Hz. B: raw data (2.5 coupling). First: bursting at baseline noise level. Second: peak synchrony level. Third: very high noise levels caused diminished synchrony. Power spectra. First: low frequency bursting formed a wide hump. Second: peak synchrony occurred at ⬃8 Hz. Third: high noise bursting at ⬃4.5 Hz. C: 3-dimensional plot showing effects of coupling and noise on the synchrony of the network. Synchrony increased with coupling and with noise, having maximum slope on a diagonal when both are increased together. Equal values of synchrony can be achieved for many combinations of synchrony and noise. This profile is typical of CR. D: frequency of oscillations changes with D, but there were only insignificant differences with Cmax of 0, 0.5, and 2.5. 2608 W. C. STACEY AND D. M. DURAND Jefferys 1984), which also have been used as models of epileptiform activity. Therefore electrical coupling strongly affects signal detection in CA1 cells and suggests a pathophysiological role of the effects shown in this paper. Noise characteristics affect stochastic resonance in neural networks Because of the time constant of neural membranes, the membrane voltage cannot return to baseline if signals arrive in quick succession. Noise produced by minis of lower amplitude (lower gmax) requires higher mean firing frequency to produce the same variance as higher amplitude minis, as shown in Fig. 2 and Eq. 5, which is based on the Poisson nature of the noise (2 ⫽ variance, A ⫽ amplitude, f ⫽ mean frequency) 2 ⬀ A2 䡠 f (5) Noise oscillations and bursting activity in a CA1 network When a single cell was presented with high levels of noise it fired periodically as in autonomous SR (Gang et al. 1993; Lee et al. 1998). When multiple cells were coupled, the network response was similar as the noise variance increased, J Neurophysiol • VOL 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 Our data show that although similar variance can be produced with minis of disparate amplitudes, the neural response can vary significantly. There was a significant difference in the response to noise produced by minis with gmax ⫽ 1 and 0.22 nS, which encompasses the range of published baseline noise values (Bekkers and Stevens 1989; Destexhe et al. 1998; McBain and Dingledine 1992; Stricker et al. 1996). The simulations showed that 0.22-nS minis produced better signal detection (higher SNR, peak at lower variance compared with 1-nS minis) to the left of peak SNR and increased noise oscillations beyond peak SNR. As a comparison, the response to low-amplitude minis more closely approximates the response to a DC current: raising the voltage slightly changed the threshold for subthreshold signals and improved detection; raising it too much caused periodic firing. The response to higher amplitude minis, conversely, is more similar to coincidence detection: temporal summation of discrete synaptic events. SR is a useful tool that facilitates analysis of the system under both conditions. This effect stresses the importance of using models that address the frequency characteristics of neurons as well as carefully addressing the relationship between amplitude and frequency of noise events in SR analysis. Noise in CA1 can vary significantly from baseline in size (Bekkers et al. 1990; Dobrunz and Stevens 1999; Larkman et al. 1997) and frequency (Destexhe and Paré 1999; Kamondi et al. 1998; Leung 1982). LTP can change both the amplitude and frequency of events (Malgaroli and Tsien 1992; Stricker et al. 1996; Wyllie et al. 1994). The physiological range of mini amplitude and frequency in these cells is therefore larger than that simulated in this model. With an even larger range, it is clear that the neural response will depend greatly on the noise characteristics of the system. We conclude that it is important to evaluate the specific characteristics of noise presented to the cells rather than merely determine the internal noise variance. This conclusion has implications in the study of SR in neurons as well as in determining the characteristics leading to epileptiform bursting. ranging from shot noise to near-periodic firing typical of CR (Hu and Zhou 2000; Pham et al. 1998; Pradines et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2000). This result was previously detailed in more general mathematical models of neuronal networks (Kurrer and Schulten 1995; Rappel and Karma 1996). It should be noted that although our results agree in all respects tested with previous work in CR, the noise source used herein was only excitatory and thus differed from previous CR work using zero mean noise. The effects of coupling on the frequency of oscillators have been known for some time (Kepler et al. 1990). Chaos has also been shown to decrease when comparable systems become more coherent and periodic (Molgedey et al. 1992). By analyzing the role of noise and coupling with a physiological model of hippocampal cells, these earlier mathematical analyses can now be applied to physiological situations. The advantage of using this anatomic model is that it allows modulation of physiological sources that can be compared directly to experimental data. The input variance in Fig. 9C ranges from 1.7 to 510 pA2. This range of synaptic current produced a somatic voltage variance of 14,000 – 4,200,000 V2. The low end is a good estimate of noise in a quiescent cell in the hippocampal slice (Wahl et al. 1997), but the higher value is 300 times greater than baseline and must be analyzed in view of the noise sources in CA1. We have previously described how the in vivo inputs that are not present in the slice can reasonably increase the background noise 300-fold (Stacey and Durand 2001). However, it is clear that this high level of noise would disrupt detection of all synaptic signals since all cells would be firing repetitively, insensitive to any other signal. Therefore these simulations deal with phenomena that would be expected to occur within the region of physiological noise levels. The synchrony achieved with combinations of coupling and noise is a demonstration of a modified form of coherence resonance in a physiological model. It also produces synchronous, periodic bursting very similar to some models of epileptiform activity. With Cmax ⫽ 0 the output was uncorrelated, but even small amounts of coupling produced some synchrony if the noise level was high. Synchrony also increased with coupling. Maximum synchrony occurred when coupling was highest and noise was near 170 pA2 (Fig. 6C). This synergistic relationship provides a means by which small networks can reach synchrony for a wide range of coupling and noise. In a network where either noise or coupling is low, increasing the other parameter will increase synchrony. Even baseline noise (12,000 V2) or very small coupling (Cmax ⫽ 0.1) can be brought to synchrony by this method. Conditions in which both coupling and noise increase simultaneously cause the greatest change. This finding agrees with experimental evidence that noise is increased before an epileptiform burst (McBain and Dingledine 1992) and also after stimulation (Manabe et al. 1992; Mennerick and Zorumski 1995) and coupling increases in some forms of epileptic activity (Dudek et al. 1986; Jefferys 1994; Perez Velazquez and Carlen 2000). CR in this physiological model therefore provides an interesting insight into the possible role of noise and coupling in the CNS: it is a simple model of epileptic bursting. These results suggest that epileptiform activity can be evoked in a network by increasing excitability through a combination of increased noise and coupling that separately would not be sufficient to cause bursting. NOISE AND COUPLING EFFECTS IN A NEURAL NETWORK Network contributions to signal detection J Neurophysiol • VOL tuned to detect and fire at a specific frequency. Physiologically, this effect could used by higher brain centers to tune CA1 or other coupled neurons to detect specific frequencies by merely changing the variance of presynaptic firing. CONCLUSION In summary, by using a CA1 model previously tested experimentally, we were able to construct a network, determine the effects of coupling and noise on signal detection, and relate the results to physiological data. The network showed large improvements in SNR as coupling and N increased for noise near baseline, similar to other work in AESR. At high noise levels, the SNR did not match values predicted by SR due to periodic oscillations. These oscillations, as well as the specific characteristics of the SNR, were strongly dependent on the quantal amplitude of the noise, showing the importance of addressing this parameter rather than merely the overall variance. The highly coupled network was very sensitive to specific driving signals and was able to synchronize to them. Thus while SR does appear to be feasible under physiological conditions in this network, there are interesting deviations from SR theory that may have deep implications in the CNS. These results demonstrate the importance of relating neural AESR to physiological parameters to understand its possible role in vivo. CR in this model demonstrated the synergistic role of coupling and noise in making the network synchronize, and is a simple model of epileptiform activity as well as being the first demonstration of coherence resonance in a vigorous physiological neural model. These studies demonstrate interesting physiological implications of both coupling and noise on signal detection in the brain, using the framework of CR and AESR as investigative tools. REFERENCES ANDERSEN P. Synaptic integration in hippocampal CA1 pyramids. Prog Brain Res 83: 215–222, 1990. ANDREW RD, TAYLOR C, SNOW RW, AND DUDEK FE. Coupling in rat hippocampal slices: dye transfer between CA1 pyramidal cells. Br Res Bull 8: 211–222, 1982. BEKKER JM, RICHERSON GB, AND STEVENS CF. Origin of variability in quantal size in cultured hippocampal neurons and hippocampal slices. Proc Natl Acad Sci 87: 5359 –5362, 1990. BEKKER JM AND STEVENS CF. NMDA and non-NMDA receptors are colocalized at individual excitatory synapses in cultured rat hippocampus. Nature 341: 230 –233, 1989. BENZI R, SUTERA A, AND VULPIANI A. The mechanism of stochastic resonance. J Phys A 14: L453–L457, 1981. BERNARD C AND WHEAL HV. Model of local connectivity patterns in CA3 and CA1 areas of the hippocampus. Hippocampus 4: 497–529, 1994. BIKSON M, GHAI RS, BARABAN SC, AND DURAND DM. Modulation of burst frequency, duration, and amplitude in the zero-Ca(2⫹) model of epileptiform activity. J Neurophysiol 82: 2262–2270, 1999. BRAUN HA, WISSING H, SCHAFER H, AND HIRSCH MC. Oscillation and noise determine signal transduction in shark multimodal sensory cells. Nature 367: 270 –273, 1994. BROWN TH, WONG RKS, AND PRINCE DA. Spontaneous miniature synaptic potentials in hippocampal neurons. Brain Res 177: 194 –199, 1979. BULSARA A, JACOBS EW, ZHOU T, MOSS F, AND KISS L. Stochastic resonance in a single neuron model: theory and analog simulation. J Theor Biol 152: 531–555, 1991. CHIALVO DR, LONGTIN A, AND MÜLLER-GERKING J. Stochastic resonance in models of neuronal ensembles. Phys Rev E 55: 1798 –1808, 1997. COLLINS JJ, CHOW CC, CAPELA AC, AND IMHOFF TT. Aperiodic stochastic resonance. Phys Rev E 54: 5575–5583, 1996. 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 The network was configured to test two main hypotheses of signal detection. First, the effects of coupling and the number of cells on detection of a global signal were tested. With Cmax ⫽ 0, the results are similar to the findings using the FitzHughNagumo model (Collins et al. 1995) that showed the peak response increasing with N. However, the CA1 array did not respond to a broad, nonspecific range of noise variance. This is because oscillations at high variance and the limited ability of higher amplitude minis (1 nS) to improve detection both caused low SNR. It is possible that higher amplitude minis and larger N would produce the broad response described by Collins et al. (1995) and Moss and Pei (1995), but the key issue is that physiological noise sources in CA1 cells cause oscillations and will corrupt detection in a manner not predicted by SR theory. When coupling increased, our results were only partially similar to previous coupled models for low noise levels— the peak resonance shifts up and to the left for increasing coupling (Inchiosa and Bulsara 1995a)— but deviated from those predicted by SR at high noise. A coupled network can therefore detect signals better than a single cell as long as noise does not induce periodic oscillations in the network. These results suggest that neural networks in the brain are able to utilize noise and coupling to improve detection under certain conditions. First, a network with more cells can detect a subthreshold signal with a higher SNR, leading to a stronger output. In the case of the CA1 cells, one functional consequence of this effect would be improved memory formation. Second, a highly coupled network is able to detect a signal further from threshold if noise is present. Functionally, such a network would be a sensitive detector. As suggested by Huber et al. (1999, 2000) for psychiatric illnesses, noise may play a major role in brain pathology as well. In this case, the network would also be prone to oscillations if noise rose too high and could become an epileptic focus. Obviously, these effects would have strong implications in both normal and pathological signal detection in the brain. The second hypothesis was that a single cell could recruit other cells in the network through the combined effects of coupling and noise. With physiological noise sources, the signal cell was unable to recruit its neighbors under most circumstances. In most cases, the excitability of the other cells overwhelmed the input signal with random firing. Even a suprathreshold signal had poor recruiting ability, suggesting that recruitment in this network was difficult to produce using the chosen coupling mechanism regardless of signal strength. However, there were configurations in which the signal cell could recruit the other cells: when noise and coupling were high enough to bring the network near the phase transition to periodic firing. This is an interesting combination of the effects of CR and SR in the network. In these situations, a network prone to fire nearly synchronized bursts around a certain frequency could be driven to fire synchronously by a subthreshold periodic signal at slightly higher frequency. This CA1 network was specifically designed to ignore frequency effects in the signal by not including the potassium AHP channel or longterm potentiation (LTP) effects (Stacey and Durand 2000). However, this tuning phenomenon is frequency dependent and appears to be due to intrinsic membrane and network characteristics. This effect may provide a means for the network to be 2609 2610 W. C. STACEY AND D. M. DURAND J Neurophysiol • VOL LEVIN JE AND MILLER JP. Broadband neural encoding in the cricket cercal sensory system enhance by stochastic resonance. Nature 380: 165–168, 1996. LINDNER B AND SCHIMANSKY-GEIER L. Analytical approach to the stochastic FitzHugh-Nagumo system and coherence resonance. Phys Rev E 60: 7270 – 7276, 1999. LINDNER B AND SCHIMANSKY-GEIER L. Coherence and stochastic resonance in a two-state system. Phys Rev E 61: 6103– 6110, 2000. LINDNER JF, MEADOWS BK, DITTO WL, INCHIOSA ME, AND BULSARA AR. Array enhanced stochastic resonance and spatiotemporal synchronization. Phys Rev Lett 75: 3– 6, 1995. LOCHER M, JOHNSON GA, AND HUNT ER. Spatiotemporal stochastic resonance in a system of coupled diode resonators. Phys Rev Lett 77: 4698 – 4701, 1996. MACVICAR BA AND DUDEK FE. Electrotonic coupling between pyramidal cells: a direct demonstration in rat hippocampal slices. Science 213: 782– 785, 1981. MALGAROLI A AND TSIEN RW. Glutamate-induced long-term potentiation of the frequency of miniature synaptic currents in cultured hippocampal neurons. Nature 357: 134 –139, 1992. MANABE T, RENNER P, AND NICOLL RA. Postsynaptic contribution of long-term potentiation revealed by the analysis of miniature synaptic currents. Nature 355: 50 –55, 1992. MCBAIN C AND DINGLEDINE R. Dual-component miniature excitatory synaptic currents in rat hippocampal CA3 pyramidal neurons. J Neurophysiol 68: 16 –27, 1992. MENNERICK SJ AND ZORUMSKI CF. Paired-pulse modulation of fast excitatory synaptic currents in microcultures of rat hippocampal neurons. J Physiol (Lond) 488: 85–101, 1995. MOLGEDEY L, SCHUCHHARDT J, AND SCHUSTER HG. Suppressing chaos in neural networks by noise. Phys Rev Lett 69: 3717–3719, 1992. MORSE RP AND ROPER P. Enhanced coding in a cochlear-implant model using additive noise: aperiodic stochastic resonance with tuning. Phys Rev E 61: 5683–5692, 2000. MOSS F AND PEI X. Neurons in parallel. Nature 376: 211–212, 1995. MOSS F, PIERSON D, AND O’GORMAN D. Stochastic resonance: tutorial and update. Int J Bifurc Chaos 4: 1383–1397, 1994. NEIMAN A, SAPARIN PI, AND STONE L. Coherence resonance at noisy precursors of bifurcations in nonlinear dynamical systems. Phys Rev E 56: 270 –273, 1997. PEI X, WILKENS L, AND MOSS F. Light enhances hydrodynamic signaling in the multimodal caudal photoreceptor interneurons of the crayfish. J Neurophysiol 76: 3002–3011, 1996. PEREZ VELAZQUEZ JL AND CARLEN PL. Gap junctions, synchrony and seizures. Trends Neurosci 23: 68 –74, 2000. PEREZ VELAZQUEZ JL, VALIANTE TA, AND CARLEN PL. Modulation of gap junctional mechanisms during calcium-free induced field burst activity: a possible role for electrotonic coupling in epileptogenesis. Neuroscience 14: 4308 – 4317, 1994. PHAM J, PAKDAMAN K, AND VIBERT JF. Noise-induced coherent oscillations in randomly connected neural networks. Phys Rev E 58: 3610 –3622, 1998. PRADINES JR, OSIPOV GV, AND COLLINS JJ. Coherence resonance in excitable and oscillatory systems: the essential role of slow and fast dynamics. Phys Rev E 60: 6407– 6410, 1999. RAPPEL W-J AND KARMA A. Noise-induced coherence in neural networks. Phys Rev Lett 77: 3256 –3259, 1996. RUSSELL DF, WILKENS LA, AND MOSS F. Use of behavioural stochastic resonance by paddle fish for feeding. Nature 402: 291–294, 1999. SAYER RJ, REDMAN SJ, AND ANDERSEN P. Amplitude fluctuations in small EPSPs recorded from CA1 pyramidal cells in the guinea pig hippocampal slice. J Neurosci 9: 840 – 850, 1989. SCHWARTZKROIN PA, BARABAN SC, AND HOCHMAN DW. Osmolarity, ionic flux, and changes in brain excitability. Epilepsy Res 32: 275–285, 1998. SCHWEITZER JS, PATRYLO PR, AND DUDEK FE. Prolonged field bursts in the dentate gyrus: dependence on low calcium, high potassium, and nonsynaptic mechanisms. J Neurophysiol 68: 2016 –2025, 1992. SEGAL MM. Endogenous bursts underlie seizurelike activity in solitary excitatory hippocampal neurons in microcultures. J Neurophysiol 72: 1874 – 1884, 1994. SPRUSTON N, JAFFE DB, WILLIAMS SH, AND JOHNSTON D. Voltage- and spaceclamped errors associated with the measurement of electrotonically remote synaptic events. J Neurophysiol 70: 781– 802, 1993. STACEY WC AND DURAND DM. Stochastic resonance in hippocampal CA1 neurons. J Neurophysiol 83: 1394 –1402, 2000. 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 COLLINS JJ, CHOW CC, AND IMHOFF TT. Stochastic resonance without tuning. Nature 376: 236 –238, 1995. COX D AND LEWIS P. The Statistical Analysis of Series of Events. London: Methuen, 1996. DESTEXHE A, MAINEN ZF, AND SEJNOWSKI TJ. Kinetic models of synaptic transmission. In: Methods in Neuronal Modeling, 2nd ed., edited by Koch C and Segev I. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998. DESTEXHE A AND PARÉ D. Impact of network activity on the integrative properties of neocortical pyramidal neurons in vivo. J Neurophysiol 81: 1531–1547, 1999. DOBRUNZ LE AND STEVENS CF. Response of hippocampal synapses to natural stimulation patterns. Neuron 22: 157–166, 1999. DOUGLASS JK, WILKENS L, PANTAZELOU E, AND MOSS F. Noise enhancement of information transfer in crayfish mechanoreceptors by stochastic resonance. Nature 365: 337–340, 1993. DUDEK FE, SNOW RW, AND TAYLOR CP. Role of electrical interactions in synchronization of epileptiform bursts. Adv Neurol 44: 593– 617, 1986. DYKMAN MI, LUCHINSKY DG, MANNELLA R, MCCLINTOCK PVE, STEIN ND, AND STOCKS NG. Stochastic resonance in perspective. Il Nuovo Cimento 17: 661– 683, 1995. GANG H, DITZINGER T, NING CZ, AND HAKEN H. Stochastic resonance without external periodic force. Phys Rev Lett 71: 807– 810, 1993. GLUCKMAN BJ, NETOFF TI, NEEL EJ, DITTO WL, SPANO ML, AND SCHIFF SJ. Stochastic resonance in a neuronal network from mammalian brain. Phys Rev Lett 77: 4098 – 4101, 1996. GLUCKMAN BJ, SO P, NETOFF TI, SPANO ML, AND SCHIFF SJ. Stochastic resonance in mammalian neuronal networks. CHAOS 8: 588 –598, 1998. HAAS HL AND JEFFERYS JG. Low-calcium field burst discharges of CA1 pyramidal neurones in rat hippocampal slices. J Physiol (Lond) 354: 185– 201, 1984. HINES ML. NEURON: A program for simulation of nerve equations. In: Neural Systems: Analysis and Modeling, edited by Eeckman F. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993, p. 127–136. HU B AND ZHOU C. Phase synchronization in coupled nonidentical excitable systems and array-enhanced coherence resonance. Phys Rev E 61: R1001– R1004, 2000. HUBER MT, BRAUN HA, AND KRIEG JC. Consequences of deterministic and random dynamics for the course of affective disorders. Biol Psychiatr 46: 256 –262, 1999. HUBER MT, BRAUN HA, AND KRIEG JC. Effects of noise on different disease states of recurrent affective disorders. Biol Psychiatr 47: 634 – 642, 2000. INCHIOSA ME AND BULSARA AR. Coupling enhances stochastic resonance in nonlinear dynamic elements driven by a sinusoid plus noise. Phys Lett A 200: 283–288, 1995a. INCHIOSA ME AND BULSARA AR. Nonlinear dynamic elements with noisy sinusoidal forcing: enhancing response via nonlinear coupling. Phys Rev E 52: 327–339, 1995b. JEFFERYS JG. Experimental neurobiology of epilepsies. Curr Opin Neurol 7: 113–22, 1994. JEFFERYS JG. Nonsynaptic modulation of neuronal activity in the brain: electric currents and extracellular ions. Physiol Rev 75: 689 –723, 1995. JENSEN M AND YAARI Y. Role of intrinsic burst firing, potassium accumulation, and electrical coupling in the elevated potassium model of hippocampal epilepsy. J Neurophysiol 77: 1224 –1233, 1997. KAMONDI A, ACSÁDY L, AND BUZSÁKI G. Dendritic spikes are enhanced by cooperative network activity in the intact hippocampus. J Neurosci 18: 3919 –3928, 1998. KANAMARU T, HORITA T, AND OKABE Y. Theoretical analysis of array-enhanced stochastic resonance in the diffusively coupled FitzHugh-Nagumo equation. Phys Rev E 64: 031908, 2001. KEPLER TB, MARDER E, AND ABBOTT LF. The effect of electrical coupling on the frequency of model neuronal oscillators. Science 248: 83– 85, 1990. KURRER C AND SCHULTEN K. Noise-induced synchronous neuronal oscillations. Phys Rev E 51: 6213– 6218, 1995. LARKMAN AU, JACK JJB, AND STRATFORD KJ. Assessment of reliability of amplitude histograms from excitatory synapses in rat hippocampal CA1 in vitro. J Physiol (Lond) 505: 443– 456, 1997. LEE SG, NEIMAN A, AND KIM S. Coherence resonance in a Hodgkin-Huxley neuron. Phys Rev E 57: 3292–3297, 1998. LEE SH, MAGGE S, SPENCER DD, SONTHEIMER H, AND CORNELL-BELL AH. Human epileptic astrocytes exhibit increased gap junction coupling. Glia 15: 195–202, 1995. LEUNG LS. Nonlinear feedback model of neuronal populations in hippocampal CA1 region. J Neurophysiol 47: 845– 868, 1982. NOISE AND COUPLING EFFECTS IN A NEURAL NETWORK STACEY WC AND DURAND DM. Synaptic noise improves detection of subthreshold signals in hippocampal CA1 neurons. J Neurophysiol 86: 1104 – 1112, 2001. STRICKER C, FIELD AC, AND REDMAN SJ. Statistical analysis of amplitude fluctuations in EPSCs evoked in rat CA1 pyramidal neurones in vitro. J Physiol (Lond) 490: 419 – 441, 1996. STOCKS NG AND MANNELLA R. Generic noise-enhanced coding in neuronal arrays. Phys Rev E 64: 030902, 2001. STOCKS NG, STEIN ND, AND MCCLINTOCK PVE. Stochastic resonance in monostable systems. J Phys A 26: L385–L390, 1993. TAYLOR CP AND DUDEK FEA. Physiological test for electrotonic coupling between CA1 pyramidal cells in rat hippocampal slices. Brain Res 235: 351–357, 1982. TRAUB RD, DUDEK FE, TAYLOR CP, AND KNOWLES WD. Simulation of hippocampal afterdischarges synchronized by electrical interactions. Neuroscience 14: 1033–1038, 1985. TRAUB RD, WHITTINGTON MA, BUHL EH, JEFFERYS JGR, AND FAULKNER HJ. On the mechanism of the ␥3 frequency shift in neuronal oscillations induced in rat hippocampal slices by tetanic stimulation. J Neurosci 19: 1088 –1105, 1999. 2611 VIGMOND EJ, PEREZ VELASQUEZ JL, VALIANTE TA, BARDAKIAN BJ, AND CARLEN PL. Mechanisms of electrical coupling between pyramidal cells. J Neurophysiol 78: 3107–3116, 1997. WAHL LM, JACK JJB, LARKMAN AU, AND STRATFORD KJ. The effects of synaptic noise on measurement of evoked excitatory postsynaptic amplitudes. Biophys J 73: 205–219, 1997. WANG YQ, CHIK DTW, AND WANG ZD. Coherence resonance and noiseinduced synchronization in globally coupled Hodgkin-Huxley neurons. Phys Rev E 61: 740 –746, 2000. WARMAN EN, DURAND DM, AND YUEN GLF. Reconstruction of hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cell electrophysiology by computer simulation. J Neurophysiol 71: 2033–2045, 1994. WIESENFELD K AND MOSS F. Stochastic resonance and the benefits of noise: from ice ages to crayfish to SQUIDS. Nature 373: 33–36, 1995. WIESENFELD K, PIERSON D, PANTAZALOU E, DAMES C, AND MOSS F. Stochastic resonance on a circle. Phys Rev Lett 72: 2125–2129, 1994. WYLLIE DJA, MANABE T, AND NICOLL RA. A rise in postsynaptic Ca2⫹ potentiates miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents and AMPA responses in hippocampal neurons. Neuron 12: 127–138, 1994. Downloaded from http://jn.physiology.org/ by 10.220.32.247 on June 11, 2017 J Neurophysiol • VOL 88 • NOVEMBER 2002 • www.jn.org