Back

On an Analogy Between Ephaptic Coupling in Large Tracts and Cross-Modal Integration During Illusory Percept

Chawla, A.; Morgera, S. D.

2022-10-28 neuroscience
10.1101/2022.10.27.509121 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In this paper, the authors report simulations analogous to cross-modal integration which can be modeled by thinking of large (in terms of numbers of axons) axon tracts with distinctly demarcated subsets of axons. In such a tract, when the demarcated regions are separately stimulated they fire in response to the stimulation. Due to extracellular current-based coupling, at a later time, unstimulated axons also begin to cross-talk. The simulation graphical result, though on a faster time scale, is analogous to the multi-channel MEG recordings of "AV-(A+V)" obtained by Shams et. al. When the coupling parameter is weakened, this cross-talk disappears. In Shams et. al., the appearance and disappearance of cross-talk are related to the perception of an illusory flash by the subject. Our extrapolated conclusion is that ephaptic coupling might be a part of the mechanism for cross-talk between brain regions mediating, say, audio and visual-processing. We also study noisy ephaptic coupling and additionally do a comparative study with the Kuramoto model, which yields insight into the exact and detailed mechanism of ephaptic synchronization.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Journal of Computational Neuroscience
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.3%
Similar papers in this journal
4
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 6%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Neural Computation
● 39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Physical Review E
● 112 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.3%
7
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
○ 60 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
9
Neurocomputing
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
10
Frontiers in Neuroscience
○ 256 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Journal of Neural Engineering
○ 221 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
12
NeuroImage
○ 903 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
13
Cognitive Neurodynamics
○ 18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Mathematical Biosciences
○ 49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
eneuro
● 439 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
European Journal of Neuroscience
○ 189 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
17
Neuroinformatics
○ 46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
18
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
19
Biological Cybernetics
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
20
Frontiers in Neural Circuits
○ 43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
21
Journal of Neurophysiology
● 302 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
22
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
● 40 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
23
Entropy
○ 21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Physiology
○ 106 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Neuroscience Letters
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
26
Neural Networks
○ 35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
27
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
28
Computers in Biology and Medicine
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
29
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
○ 77 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
● 49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.