Approximate, not Perfect Synchrony Maximizes the Downstream Effectiveness of Excitatory Neuronal Ensembles

The most basic functional role commonly ascribed to synchrony in the brain is that of amplifying excitatory neuronal signals. The reasoning is straightforward: When positive charge is injected into a leaky target neuron over a time window of positive duration, some of it will have time to leak back out before an action potential is triggered in the target, and it will in that sense be wasted. If the goal is to elicit a firing response in the target using as little charge as possible, it seems best to deliver the charge all at once, i.e., in perfect synchrony. In this article, we show that this reasoning is correct only if one assumes that the input ceases when the target crosses the firing threshold, but before it actually fires. If the input ceases later—for instance, in response to a feedback signal triggered by the firing of the target—the “most economical” way of delivering input (the way that requires the least total amount of input) is no longer precisely synchronous, but merely approximately so. If the target is a heterogeneous network, as it always is in the brain, then ceasing the input “when the target crosses the firing threshold” is not an option, because there is no single moment when the firing threshold is crossed. In this sense, precise synchrony is never optimal in the brain.

[1]  Stephane A. Roy,et al.  Coincidence Detection or Temporal Integration? What the Neurons in Somatosensory Cortex Are Doing , 2001, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  C. Gray The Temporal Correlation Hypothesis of Visual Feature Integration Still Alive and Well , 1999, Neuron.

[3]  Nancy Kopell,et al.  Gamma Oscillations and Stimulus Selection , 2008, Neural Computation.

[4]  R. Traub,et al.  Inhibition-based rhythms: experimental and mathematical observations on network dynamics. , 2000, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[5]  Nancy Kopell,et al.  Gamma and Theta Rhythms in Biophysical Models of Hippocampal Circuits , 2010 .

[6]  P. Fries Neuronal gamma-band synchronization as a fundamental process in cortical computation. , 2009, Annual review of neuroscience.

[7]  S. Lewandowsky PLOS ONE 2013 , 2015 .

[8]  R. Traub,et al.  Neuronal Networks of the Hippocampus , 1991 .

[9]  S. Epstein,et al.  Background gamma rhythmicity and attention in cortical local circuits: a computational study. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  W. Singer,et al.  Integrator or coincidence detector? The role of the cortical neuron revisited , 1996, Trends in Neurosciences.

[11]  Hui Zhang,et al.  The Role of Coincidence-Detector Neurons in the Reliability and Precision of Subthreshold Signal Detection in Noise , 2013, PloS one.

[12]  G. Buzsáki,et al.  Gamma Oscillation by Synaptic Inhibition in a Hippocampal Interneuronal Network Model , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  C. Gray,et al.  Adaptive Coincidence Detection and Dynamic Gain Control in Visual Cortical Neurons In Vivo , 2003, Neuron.

[14]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Correlated neuronal activity and the flow of neural information , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[15]  G. Ermentrout,et al.  Parabolic bursting in an excitable system coupled with a slow oscillation , 1986 .

[16]  P. Fries A mechanism for cognitive dynamics: neuronal communication through neuronal coherence , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  G B Ermentrout,et al.  Fine structure of neural spiking and synchronization in the presence of conduction delays. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.