Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 55 references

Cross frequency coupling in next generation inhibitory neural mass models

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two bidirectionally coupled inhibitory neural populations with fast and slow GABA_A-like synaptic kinetics can generate theta–gamma cross-frequency coupling.

desk verdict The phase-phase CFC result in an exact inhibitory neural mass model is solid and worth knowing, but the advertised phase-amplitude coupling claim is not quantitatively supported and should be either measured or toned down. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07954 v1 pith:FLCAR7M4 submitted 2019-08-21 nlin.AO cond-mat.dis-nn

Andrea Ceni , Simona Olmi , Alessandro Torcini , David Angulo-Garcia This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.AOcond-mat.dis-nn MSC 37N2592B20
keywords cross-frequencycouplingtheta-gammainhibitoryneuralpopulationsquadraticintegrate-and-fireneuronsmassmodelOtt-Antonsenreductionphase-amplitudecollectiveoscillations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a purely inhibitory circuit of spiking neurons, described exactly at the population level, can itself generate the theta–gamma cross-frequency coupling observed in hippocampus and cortex. By coupling two inhibitory populations with fast and slow GABA_A-like synaptic kinetics, it finds 3:1 phase-phase locking between theta and gamma rhythms at low heterogeneity, and phase-amplitude coupling (theta-nested gamma) at higher heterogeneity. A theta-frequency drive applied to the slow population enlarges the region of 3:1 coupling and lets it survive more disorder. If correct, this means theta–gamma CFC can arise from local inhibitory dynamics alone, without requiring excitatory feedback loops or an external theta pacemaker.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exact mean-field reduction of QIF neurons with exponential synapses: for each population the collective state is described by three variables, the firing rate, the mean membrane potential, and the mean synaptic activity, whose evolution (Eq. 5) is closed and exact in the infinite-population limit under a Lorentzian distribution of excitabilities and the Ott-Antonsen ansatz. This six-dimensional system lets the authors locate Hopf and torus bifurcations analytically or numerically, compute Lyapunov spectra to identify chaos, and quantify n:m locking with the Kuramoto order parameter for the phase difference between populations. The same reduction makes direct comparison between spiking network simulations and mean-field predictions possible.

What would settle it

Run the spiking QIF network at finite $N$ (say 10,000 neurons per population) with Gaussian or uniform excitability distributions for the parameters of Figs. 8–10 and measure whether the 3:1 locking order parameter and the phase-amplitude modulation at $\Delta=0.2$ survive; alternatively, test the same fast/slow GABA_A kinetics in a conductance-based interneuron model and check whether the CFC region and its enlargement under $\theta$ drive match the mean-field prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Two bidirectionally coupled inhibitory populations of quadratic integrate-and-fire neurons, with synaptic decay times 9 ms and 50 ms, spontaneously produce $\theta$ and gamma collective oscillations locked in a 3:1 ratio. In the exact mean-field limit, the fast population's gamma bursts are phase-locked to the slow population's $\theta$ rhythm when the disorder in single-neuron excitabilities is low ($\Delta=0.05$); for larger disorder ($\Delta=0.2$), the fast population's firing becomes nearly asynchronous but its firing rate is strongly amplitude-modulated by the slow rhythm, reproducing $\theta$-nested gamma. Driving the slow population with a 10 Hz inhibitory sinusoidal current increases $\theta$-band power, broadens the 3:1 locking region in the cross-coupling plane, and extends the locked state to $\Delta\approx 0.2$–$0.3$. The paper also shows that a single population self-oscillates via a supercritical Hopf bifurcation, with frequency controlled chiefly by the synaptic time constant, and that unidirectionally coupled populations with very different synaptic time scales can exhibit quasi-periodicity and low-dimensional chaos.

Load-bearing premise

The whole picture rests on the mean-field reduction being exact: excitabilities drawn from a Lorentzian distribution, all-to-all coupling, the Ott-Antonsen closure, and the infinite-population limit, so if finite-size effects or another excitability distribution change the collective dynamics, the predicted CFC regions—especially phase-amplitude coupling at $\Delta=0.2$, near the loss of synchronization—would not be robust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single inhibitory QIF population with exponential synapses self-sustains collective oscillations through a supercritical Hopf bifurcation, with frequency set mainly by the synaptic decay time across roughly 5–30 Hz.
  • In a master-slave configuration with sufficiently different synaptic time scales, two inhibitory populations produce quasi-periodic tori and, for a 1:32 time-scale ratio, low-dimensional chaos with a single positive Lyapunov exponent.
  • Without external drive, bidirectionally coupled fast and slow inhibitory populations show 3:1 theta–gamma phase locking only in a narrow cross-coupling region and only for heterogeneity $\Delta \lesssim 0.1$.
  • Adding a 10 Hz inhibitory drive to the slow population enlarges the 3:1 locking region and raises the disorder threshold to about $\Delta \approx 0.2$–$0.3$, converting the coupling from phase-phase to phase-amplitude as disorder grows.
  • The two resulting CFC modes match experimentally reported theta–gamma phase-phase coupling in behaving rats and theta-nested gamma under optogenetic stimulation, but arise here in a purely inhibitory exact mean-field model.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mean-field scenario survives contact with finite-size networks, it implies that theta-nested gamma can be a purely local inhibitory phenomenon; excitatory feedback loops may be an additional pathway rather than a necessary one.
  • The exact reduction makes the CFC region a good candidate for analytical phase-response analysis: a macroscopic phase-resetting curve for the two-population system could predict where 3:1 locking is most stable without dense parameter scans.
  • A testable extension of the disorder transition is that raising heterogeneity in the fast population should convert phase-phase into phase-amplitude coupling continuously, so experiments combining optogenetic theta drive with manipulations of interneuron heterogeneity could look for the same transition.
  • The same two-timescale mechanism may produce other integer locking ratios in narrow parameter stripes, which could appear as harmonic CFC in recordings if synaptic kinetics are pharmacologically tuned.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies an exactly reduced neural mass model for networks of QIF neurons with exponential synapses, obtained via the Ott-Antonsen ansatz in the infinite-N limit. It first characterizes self-sustained collective oscillations in a single inhibitory population, deriving an explicit parametrization of the Hopf boundaries. It then analyzes a single population under harmonic forcing, reporting Arnold tongues, devil's staircases, and low-dimensional chaos. Two coupled populations are studied in a master-slave configuration, where quasi-periodicity and chaos are found for sufficiently disparate synaptic time scales. Finally, bidirectionally coupled fast and slow inhibitory populations are shown to exhibit 3:1 phase-phase locking at low heterogeneity, and the paper claims phase-amplitude theta-gamma CFC at larger heterogeneity, with an external theta drive enlarging and stabilizing the locking region.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper provides a substantial step toward understanding theta-gamma cross-frequency coupling in a mathematically tractable, exact neural mass model, showing that purely inhibitory circuits with fast and slow GABA_A-like synaptic kinetics can generate both phase-phase and phase-amplitude CFC. The strengths of the paper are its explicit Hopf boundary calculation (Appendix), the use of Lyapunov spectra and Kaplan-Yorke dimension to characterize chaos, quantitative phase-phase locking via the order parameter rho_nm, and direct network-to-mean-field comparisons for several key regimes. The central weakness is that the phase-amplitude CFC claim rests entirely on visual inspection of raster plots and rate traces, without any quantitative CFC metric or control analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.D, Fig. 10] The phase-amplitude CFC claim is not supported by any quantitative measure. The paper states that at Delta=0.2 the fast population fires 'almost asynchronously with a really low firing rate', yet the slow envelope of r(A) is interpreted as theta-nested gamma oscillations. Because the slow population is directly forced by I(B)=I0 sin(2*pi*nu_theta*t), the observed modulation could be a direct response to the driving current rather than cross-frequency coupling between two internally generated rhythms. Please compute a standard phase-amplitude coupling metric (e.g., a modulation index or phase-amplitude histogram) and compare against a control where the fast population's intrinsic oscillation is absent or decoupled.
  2. [Section III.D, Figs. 9-10] For the phase-amplitude scenario at Delta=0.2, only network simulations are shown; no comparison with the mean-field model (5) is provided for this regime. Since the paper's central claim is based on the exactness of the mean-field reduction, the P-A case should be validated with a network-versus-mean-field overlay analogous to Fig. 8(C). Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the claimed P-A coupling is a robust feature of the reduced model or an artifact of finite-size network behavior.
  3. [Section II.C, Eq. (6)] The linearized equation for delta r^(l) contains the term v^(A) delta r^(A) in the numerator for both populations. This appears to be a typo: for l=B the second term should be v^(B) delta r^(B). Since the Lyapunov spectrum is used to characterize chaos and quasi-periodicity, this equation should be corrected and the numerical results checked for consistency.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption and Section III.A] The caption of Fig. 2(B) and the corresponding text state 'for Delta = 0.5'; based on the figure and surrounding discussion, this should read 'Delta = 0.05'.
  2. [Section III.D, Eq. (13) vs. Fig. 9-10] The harmonic drive in the single-population study is strictly negative, I(t) = -I0(1+sin(2*pi*nu_0*t)), but the theta forcing in the bidirectional case is written as I(B)=I0 sin(2*pi*nu_theta*t), which has positive and negative phases. Please clarify whether the theta drive in the CFC section is meant to be purely inhibitory and, if so, adjust the sign/notation consistently.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption states 'tau = 10' without units; it should read 'tau = 10 ms' for consistency with the rest of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: Hopf boundaries are derived in-paper and the CFC results are numerical observations; only minor peripheral self-citations and an unquantified phase-amplitude claim merit note.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The mean-field model, Eq. (5), is adopted from Montbrió, Pazó, and Roxin (2015) and Devalle, Roxin, and Montbrió (2017), which are external derivations, and the paper uses that model as its working substrate rather than claiming to derive it from its own results. The Hopf bifurcation boundaries, Eqs. (11)-(12), are obtained explicitly in the Appendix from the characteristic polynomial, Eq. (18), so they are not imported as fitted or cited constraints. The master-slave phase diagrams, Lyapunov spectra, and chaotic windows are numerical results of the six-dimensional reduced system, and they are not re-projections of fitted parameters. The cross-frequency-coupling claims are also numerical: phase-phase locking is quantified via the order parameter rho_nm, Eq. (10), and the enlargement of the 3:1 locking region under theta drive is computed rather than imposed. Self-citations appear (e.g., refs. 7, 21, 40, 50), but they are peripheral and are not load-bearing for the main CFC conclusion. One caveat is explicit in the text but is a support gap, not circularity: in the phase-amplitude scenario at Delta = 0.2, the paper relies on visual inspection of Fig. 10, and the text itself says 'the neurons in population (A) fire almost asynchronously with a really low firing rate,' so no quantitative phase-amplitude coupling metric is computed; this weakens the empirical support without making the result equivalent to its inputs by construction. Overall score 2 reflects minor self-citation presence without load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities; its contribution is a numerical and bifurcation analysis of an existing exact mean-field model. The central CFC claim depends on the imported model's validity and on hand-chosen parameters that place the populations in theta and gamma bands, plus a qualitative P-A interpretation.

free parameters (8)
  • Fast synaptic time constant tau_d^(A) = 9 ms
    Set to mimic GABA_A,fast IPSPs and place the fast population in the gamma band.
  • Slow synaptic time constant tau_d^(B) = 50 ms
    Set to mimic GABA_A,slow IPSPs and place the slow population in the theta band.
  • Excitability medians eta_bar_A, eta_bar_B = 2, 1.5
    Chosen so the populations self-oscillate near gamma and theta frequencies.
  • Self-inhibitory couplings J_AA, J_BB = -2, -18
    Chosen to keep each population in the oscillatory regime with the desired frequency.
  • Cross-couplings J_AB, J_BA = -1, -6.63
    Selected to maximize the 3:1 locking order parameter rho_31.
  • Heterogeneity Delta = 0.05 (low), 0.2 (high)
    Chosen to illustrate P-P coupling at low disorder and P-A coupling at high disorder; the CFC is lost above Delta about 0.2-0.3.
  • Theta forcing amplitude and frequency I_0^B, nu_theta = 0.5, 10 Hz
    Chosen to model optogenetic theta drive; frequency is in the theta band.
  • Master-slave parameter set C2 synaptic times = tau_d^A = 2.5 ms, tau_d^B = 80 ms
    Large time-scale ratio used to observe the period-doubling cascade to chaos.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The population excitabilities are Lorentzian distributed, and the Ott-Antonsen ansatz provides an exact closure for the macroscopic dynamics (Eq. 5).
    This is the core mathematical assumption inherited from Refs. 38, 41, 20; it is exact only in the N goes to infinity limit for this specific distribution and fully coupled topology.
  • domain assumption Neurons are QIF with exponential synapses and all-to-all coupling within each population (Eq. 1).
    The biological relevance of the CFC result assumes these simplified single-neuron and connectivity properties capture the essential interneuron network behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper External theta drive is modeled as a purely inhibitory sinusoidal current on the slow population (I^B = I0 sin(2 pi nu_theta t)).
    This is a specific modeling choice for optogenetic-like stimulation; other drive waveforms or excitatory drives might change the CFC regions.
  • domain assumption The fast and slow synaptic time constants map to GABA_A,fast and GABA_A,slow receptor kinetics.
    The paper uses this mapping to connect model parameters to biological interneuron populations, citing Refs. 4, 47, 54.
  • standard math Hilbert transform provides a valid phase for the firing-rate oscillations.
    Standard signal-processing tool; requires oscillations to be sufficiently narrowband, which is reasonable for the locked states studied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cross frequency coupling in next generation inhibitory neural mass models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLCAR7M4

@misc{pith2026190807954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cross frequency coupling in next generation inhibitory neural mass models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLCAR7M4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07954}
}
read the original abstract

Coupling among neural rhythms is one of the most important mechanisms at the basis of cognitive processes in the brain. In this study we consider a neural mass model, rigorously obtained from the microscopic dynamics of an inhibitory spiking network with exponential synapses, able to autonomously generate collective oscillations (COs). These oscillations emerge via a super-critical Hopf bifurcation, and their frequencies are controlled by the synaptic time scale, the synaptic coupling and the excitability of the neural population. Furthermore, we show that two inhibitory populations in a master-slave configuration with different synaptic time scales can display various collective dynamical regimes: namely, damped oscillations towards a stable focus, periodic and quasi-periodic oscillations, and chaos. Finally, when bidirectionally coupled the two inhibitory populations can exhibit different types of theta-gamma cross-frequency couplings (CFCs): namely, phase-phase and phase-amplitude CFC. The coupling between theta and gamma COs is enhanced in presence of a external theta forcing, reminiscent of the type of modulation induced in Hippocampal and Cortex circuits via optogenetic drive.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07954 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A), for three values of ∆: the region inside the closed curves corresponds to the oscillating regime. Upon decreasing the dispersion of the excitability (∆), the re￾gion of oscillatory behavior increases. This result high￾lights that some degree of homogeneity in the neural pop￾ulation is required in order to sustain a collective activity. In particular, for dispersions larger than a critical value ∆c it is impossi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (A). The results are reported in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    GABA (gamma-Aminobutyric acid) is the main inhibitory neurotransmitter in the adult mammalian brain, GABA performs its action by binding to GABA _A or GABA _B receptors

    work page

  2. [2]

    Akam, T., Oren, I., Mantoan, L., Ferenczi, E., and Kullmann, D. M. (2012). Oscillatory dynamics in the hippocampus support dentate gyrus--ca3 coupling. Nature neuroscience , 15(5):763

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    and Torcini, A

    Angulo-Garcia, D. and Torcini, A. (2014). Stable chaos in fluctuation driven neural circuits. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 69(0):233 -- 245

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    I., Li, T.-B., and Pearce, R

    Banks, M. I., Li, T.-B., and Pearce, R. A. (1998). The synaptic basis of gabaa, slow. Journal of Neuroscience , 18(4):1305--1317

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    A., Mizuseki, K., Schmidt, R., Kempter, R., and Buzs \'a ki, G

    Belluscio, M. A., Mizuseki, K., Schmidt, R., Kempter, R., and Buzs \'a ki, G. (2012). Cross-frequency phase--phase coupling between theta and gamma oscillations in the hippocampus. Journal of Neuroscience , 32(2):423--435

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Benettin, G., Galgani, L., Giorgilli, A., and Strelcyn, J.-M. (1980). Lyapunov characteristic exponents for smooth dynamical systems and for hamiltonian systems; a method for computing all of them. part 1: Theory. Meccanica , 15(1):9--20

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    Bi, H., Segneri, M., di Volo, M., and Torcini, A. (2019). Coexistence of fast and slow gamma oscillations in one population of inhibitory spiking neurons. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00230

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Brunel, N. (2000). Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons. J. Comput. Neurosci. , 8(3):183--208

    work page 2000

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    and Hakim, V

    Brunel, N. and Hakim, V. (1999). Fast global oscillations in networks of integrate-and-fire neurons with low firing rates. Neural. Comput. , 11(1):1621--1671

    1999

  2. [10]

    L., Hay, Y

    Butler, J. L., Hay, Y. A., and Paulsen, O. (2018). Comparison of three gamma oscillations in the mouse entorhinal--hippocampal system. European Journal of Neuroscience , 48(8):2795--2806

    2018

  3. [11]

    L., Mendon c a, P

    Butler, J. L., Mendon c a, P. R., Robinson, H. P., and Paulsen, O. (2016). Intrinsic cornu ammonis area 1 theta-nested gamma oscillations induced by optogenetic theta frequency stimulation. Journal of Neuroscience , 36(15):4155--4169

    2016

  4. [12]

    Buzs \'a ki, G. (2002). Theta oscillations in the hippocampus. Neuron , 33(3):325--340

    2002

  5. [13]

    Buzsaki, G. (2006). Rhythms of the Brain . Oxford University Press, USA, 1 edition

    2006

  6. [14]

    and Wang, X.-J

    Buzs \'a ki, G. and Wang, X.-J. (2012). Mechanisms of gamma oscillations. Annual review of neuroscience , 35:203

    2012

  7. [15]

    Canolty, R. T. and Knight, R. T. (2010). The functional role of cross-frequency coupling. Trends in cognitive sciences , 14(11):506--515

    2010

  8. [16]

    and Ricciardi, L

    Capocelli, R. and Ricciardi, L. (1971). Diffusion approximation and first passage time problem for a model neuron. Kybernetik , 8(6):214--223

    1971

  9. [17]

    L., Denninger, T., Fyhn, M., Hafting, T., Bonnevie, T., Jensen, O., Moser, M.-B., and Moser, E

    Colgin, L. L., Denninger, T., Fyhn, M., Hafting, T., Bonnevie, T., Jensen, O., Moser, M.-B., and Moser, E. I. (2009). Frequency of gamma oscillations routes flow of information in the hippocampus. Nature , 462(7271):353

    2009

  10. [18]

    and Byrne, \'A

    Coombes, S. and Byrne, \'A . (2019). Next generation neural mass models. In Corinto, F. and Torcini, A., editors, Nonlinear Dynamics in Computational Neuroscience , PoliTO Springer Series, pages 1--16. Springer, Cham

    2019

  11. [19]

    and Friston, K

    David, O. and Friston, K. J. (2003). A neural mass model for meg/eeg:: coupling and neuronal dynamics. NeuroImage , 20(3):1743--1755

    2003

  12. [20]

    Devalle, F., Roxin, A., and Montbri \'o , E. (2017). Firing rate equations require a spike synchrony mechanism to correctly describe fast oscillations in inhibitory networks. PLoS computational biology , 13(12):e1005881

    2017

  13. [21]

    and Torcini, A

    di Volo, M. and Torcini, A. (2018). Transition from asynchronous to oscillatory dynamics in balanced spiking networks with instantaneous synapses. Physical review letters , 121(12):128301

    2018

  14. [22]

    B., and Gutkin, B

    Dumont, G., Ermentrout, G. B., and Gutkin, B. (2017). Macroscopic phase-resetting curves for spiking neural networks. Physical Review E , 96(4):042311

    2017

  15. [23]

    F., and Varga, V

    Hangya, B., Borhegyi, Z., Szil \'a gyi, N., Freund, T. F., and Varga, V. (2009). Gabaergic neurons of the medial septum lead the hippocampal network during theta activity. Journal of Neuroscience , 29(25):8094--8102

    2009

  16. [24]

    M., Glennon, M., Prendergast, K., and Sauseng, P

    Holz, E. M., Glennon, M., Prendergast, K., and Sauseng, P. (2010). Theta--gamma phase synchronization during memory matching in visual working memory. Neuroimage , 52(1):326--335

    2010

  17. [25]

    Hyafil, A., Giraud, A.-L., Fontolan, L., and Gutkin, B. (2015). Neural cross-frequency coupling: connecting architectures, mechanisms, and functions. Trends in neurosciences , 38(11):725--740

    2015

  18. [26]

    Jahnke, S., Memmesheimer, R.-M., and Timme, M. (2008). Stable irregular dynamics in complex neural networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 100:048102

    2008

  19. [27]

    Jansen, B. H. and Rit, V. G. (1995). Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathematical model of coupled cortical columns. Biological cybernetics , 73(4):357--366

    1995

  20. [28]

    and Colgin, L

    Jensen, O. and Colgin, L. L. (2007). Cross-frequency coupling between neuronal oscillations. Trends in cognitive sciences , 11(7):267--269

    2007

  21. [29]

    and Yorke, J

    Kaplan, J. and Yorke, J. (1979). Functional differential equations and approximation of fixed points. Lecture notes in mathematics , 730:204--227

    1979

  22. [30]

    Kuramoto, Y. (2012). Chemical oscillations, waves, and turbulence , volume 19. Springer Science & Business Media

    2012

  23. [31]

    Kuznetsov, Y. A. (2013). Elements of applied bifurcation theory , volume 112. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  24. [32]

    K., and Shea-Brown, E

    Lajoie, G., Lin, K. K., and Shea-Brown, E. (2013). Chaos and reliability in balanced spiking networks with temporal drive. Phys. Rev. E , 87:052901

    2013

  25. [33]

    Lega, B., Burke, J., Jacobs, J., and Kahana, M. J. (2014). Slow-theta-to-gamma phase--amplitude coupling in human hippocampus supports the formation of new episodic memories. Cerebral Cortex , 26(1):268--278

    2014

  26. [34]

    Lisman, J. E. and Jensen, O. (2013). The theta-gamma neural code. Neuron , 77(6):1002--1016

    2013

  27. [35]

    London, M., Roth, A., Beeren, L., H\" a usser, M., and Latham, P. E. (2010). Sensitivity to perturbations in vivo implies high noise and suggests rate coding in cortex. Nature. , 466:123--127

    2010

  28. [36]

    B., Barreto, E., and So, P

    Luke, T. B., Barreto, E., and So, P. (2013). Complete classification of the macroscopic behavior of a heterogeneous network of theta neurons. Neural computation , 25(12):3207--3234

    2013

  29. [37]

    B., Barreto, E., and So, P

    Luke, T. B., Barreto, E., and So, P. (2014). Macroscopic complexity from an autonomous network of networks of theta neurons. Frontiers in computational neuroscience , 8:145

    2014

  30. [38]

    Montbri \'o , E., Paz \'o , D., and Roxin, A. (2015). Macroscopic description for networks of spiking neurons. Physical Review X , 5(2):021028

    2015

  31. [39]

    and Parga, N

    Moreno-Bote, R. and Parga, N. (2010). Response of integrate-and-fire neurons to noisy inputs filtered by synapses with arbitrary timescales: Firing rate and correlations. Neural Computation , 22(6):1528--1572

    2010

  32. [40]

    Olmi, S., Angulo-Garcia, D., Imparato, A., and Torcini, A. (2017). Exact firing time statistics of neurons driven by discrete inhibitory noise. Scientific Reports , 7(1):1577

    2017

  33. [41]

    and Antonsen, T

    Ott, E. and Antonsen, T. M. (2008). Low dimensional behavior of large systems of globally coupled oscillators. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 18(3):037113

    2008

  34. [42]

    C., and Nolan, M

    Pastoll, H., Solanka, L., van Rossum, M. C., and Nolan, M. F. (2013). Feedback inhibition enables theta-nested gamma oscillations and grid firing fields. Neuron , 77(1):141--154

    2013

  35. [43]

    and Montbri \'o , E

    Paz \'o , D. and Montbri \'o , E. (2014). Low-dimensional dynamics of populations of pulse-coupled oscillators. Physical Review X , 4(1):011009

    2014

  36. [44]

    Pikovsky, A., Zaks, M., Rosenblum, M., Osipov, G., and Kurths, J. (1997). Phase synchronization of chaotic oscillations in terms of periodic orbits. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 7(4):680--687

    1997

  37. [45]

    Richardson, M. J. and Swarbrick, R. (2010). Firing-rate response of a neuron receiving excitatory and inhibitory synaptic shot noise. Physical review letters , 105(17):178102

    2010

  38. [46]

    ROSENBLUM, M., TASS, P., Kurths, J., VOLKMANN, J., SCHNITZLER, A., and FREUND, H.-J. (2000). Detection of phase locking from noisy data: application to magnetoencephalography. In Chaos In Brain? , pages 34--51. World Scientific

    2000

  39. [47]

    Sceniak, M. P. and MacIver, M. B. (2008). Slow gaba a mediated synaptic transmission in rat visual cortex. BMC neuroscience , 9(1):8

    2008

  40. [48]

    Sirota, A., Montgomery, S., Fujisawa, S., Isomura, Y., Zugaro, M., and Buzs \'a ki, G. (2008). Entrainment of neocortical neurons and gamma oscillations by the hippocampal theta rhythm. Neuron , 60(4):683--697

    2008

  41. [49]

    Treves, A. (1993). Mean-field analysis of neuronal spike dynamics. Network: Computation in Neural Systems , 4(3):259--284

    1993

  42. [50]

    Ullner, E., Politi, A., and Torcini, A. (2019). Self-consistent analysis of asynchronous neural activity. in preparation

    2019

  43. [51]

    Van Vreeswijk, C., Abbott, L., and Ermentrout, G. B. (1994). When inhibition not excitation synchronizes neural firing. Journal of computational neuroscience , 1(4):313--321

    1994

  44. [52]

    Varela, F., Lachaux, J.-P., Rodriguez, E., and Martinerie, J. (2001). The brainweb: phase synchronization and large-scale integration. Nature reviews neuroscience , 2(4):229

    2001

  45. [53]

    Wang, X.-J. (2010). Neurophysiological and computational principles of cortical rhythms in cognition. Physiological reviews , 90(3):1195--1268

    2010

  46. [54]

    A., Banks, M

    White, J. A., Banks, M. I., Pearce, R. A., and Kopell, N. J. (2000). Networks of interneurons with fast and slow -aminobutyric acid type a (gabaa) kinetics provide substrate for mixed gamma-theta rhythm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 97(14):8128--8133

    2000

  47. [55]

    Wilson, H. R. and Cowan, J. D. (1972). Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons. Biophysical journal , 12(1):1--24

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.