pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.12106 · v3 · pith:LP67PDYZnew · submitted 2024-11-29 · 🧬 q-bio.NC

The Syncytial Mesh Model: A Mesoscale Control-Field Framework for Scale-Dependent Coherence in the Brain

Andreu Ballus Santacana This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 16:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC
keywords syncytial mesh modelmesoscale control fieldastrocytic syncytiumtraveling wavesbrain coherencescale-dependent synchronizationneural mass dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Astrocytic syncytium acts as a continuous slow control field that modulates neuronal excitability to produce scale-dependent brain coherence and traveling waves.

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

The paper introduces a three-layer model in which local neural circuits, long-range connectivity, and a mesoscale field tied to astrocytic organization together shape large-scale dynamics. The syncytial layer does not generate spikes but instead tunes excitability and coordination across distances. Simulations of the resulting effective field produce stable traveling waves, orderly phase gradients, and low-frequency modes that match reported infra-slow and delta/theta patterns. An analytic treatment shows how slow modulation plus damping can yield scale-dependent synchronization probabilities without requiring global phase locking of neurons.

Core claim

The syncytial mesh supplies a slow, continuous control field whose only function is to modulate neuronal excitability and coherence structure; when this field is coupled to neural-mass and connectome dynamics, the composite system spontaneously generates traveling-wave propagation, smooth phase organization, and low-frequency modal structure that qualitatively reproduce experimental coordination patterns.

What carries the argument

The syncytial mesh treated as a continuous slow mesoscale control field that modulates excitability and coherence without itself producing fast electrophysiological signals.

If this is right

  • Numerical evolution of the effective field produces stable traveling-wave fronts across the modeled domain.
  • Phase gradients organize smoothly rather than remaining fragmented by local connectivity alone.
  • Low-frequency modes emerge whose frequencies and spatial structure resemble reported infra-slow and delta/theta coordination.
  • Scale-dependent synchronization probabilities arise directly from the slow-field modulation and damping terms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same field mechanism could be tested by varying the spatial scale or strength of the control term and checking whether coherence length scales accordingly in both model and experiment.
  • If the framework holds, interventions that change astrocytic network properties should shift the dominant wavelengths of observed traveling waves without necessarily changing local firing rates.
  • The analytic coherence model suggests that damping strength sets an upper limit on the spatial range of synchronization, offering a parameter that could be matched to measured decay lengths in imaging data.

Load-bearing premise

The astrocytic syncytium can be modeled as a continuous slow control field whose sole role is to modulate neuronal excitability and coherence without generating or directly participating in fast activity.

What would settle it

Recordings from brain tissue in which astrocytic gap-junction coupling is selectively blocked should show loss or strong alteration of the predicted large-scale traveling waves and phase gradients while local fast neural activity remains intact.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12106 by Andreu Ballus Santacana.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Syncytial Mesh Model: Neural Masses, Astro￾cytic Mesh, and Tripartite Coupling. Four local neural masses (blue circles N1, . . . , N4) each drive an associated astrocyte node (red squares A1, . . . , A5) via a tripartite synapse S(r, t) (blue arrows). Astrocytes A1–A5 form a small-world network (red arrows) through gap junctions culminating in nodes A6 and A7, which propagate signals back to the neural mas… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (caption below) visualizes these results and confirms that the use of a 9-point isotropic Laplacian and PML boundary conditions yields artifact-free amplitude propagation and absorption, in contrast to standard stencils or re￾flective boundary conditions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Power Spectrum Density (PSD) of Central Mesh Node. The log-scale power spectrum (blue) is computed at the central mesh node over the simulated interval. Dashed vertical lines indicate the first three modal frequencies: 4 Hz (orange, mode 1), 8 Hz (green, mode 2), and 12 Hz (red, mode 3), aligning with theoretical eigenfrequencies fn = n c/(2L) for c = 15 µm/s and L = 32 mm. The PSD drops sharply above 12 H… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Instantaneous Phase ϕ(x, y) at t = 1.50 s. Computed via a 2D Hilbert transform on the blurred field u(x, y, 1.50) (Gaussian￾blurred σ = 1 grid unit). Domain: 32 mm × 32 mm at 1 mm res￾olution. PML: 4 mm border prevents reflections. Colormap “twi￾light_shifted” encodes ϕ ∈ [−π, +π] rad. Phase-gradient ∇ϕ (white arrows; one per 10 mm) radiates nearly radially; yellow star marks (16, 16) mm. Dispersion index … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Phase-Gradient Coherence Ci vs. PSD Correlation ri . Subject-by-subject scatter of phase-gradient co￾herence Ci versus Pearson correlation ri between simulated and recorded PSDs. Vertical dashed line at r = 0.90; horizontal dashed line at C = 0.75. High-correlation subjects (ri > 0.90) tend to have higher coherence, though there is wide dispersion. 5.5 Two-Mode Coherence Model: Scale-Dependent Probability … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scale-Dependent Two-Mode Coherence Probability Ptwo−mode(L). Abscissa: L ∈ [0.1, 100] mm. Blue curve: P(L) using λ(L) = λ0 + κ L with λ0 = 1.5903/s, κ = 1.3296 × 10−10 (µm · s)−1 . Red dashed: empirical pobs = 0.0465. Gray dotted: L = 20 mm; gray dash–dotted: L = 32 mm. For L ≪ 1 mm, P ≈ 0; around L ≈ 100 µm to 500 µm, P ≈ 0.032–0.0460; for L ≥ 1 mm, P ≈ 0.0465 (plateau). tome layers. Our simulations demon… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Syncytial Mesh Model introduces a three-layered framework for large-scale brain dynamics integrating local neural circuitry, macrostructural connectivity, and a slow mesoscale control-field substrate associated with astrocytic syncytial organization. Rather than directly generating electrophysiological activity, the proposed syncytial layer modulates neuronal excitability, coherence structure, and metastable coordination across spatial scales. The framework is formulated as a phenomenological effective theory combining neural-mass dynamics, connectome-scale coupling, and continuous-field interactions. Within this architecture, the model provides a candidate explanation for large-scale traveling-wave organization, low-frequency coherence structure, and distributed plasticity phenomena that are not straightforwardly reducible to direct local synaptic connectivity alone. Numerical simulations of the effective field dynamics generate stable traveling-wave propagation, smooth phase-gradient organization, and low-frequency modal structure qualitatively resembling experimentally reported infra-slow and delta/theta coordination patterns. An analytic mesoscale coherence model further illustrates how scale-dependent synchronization probabilities may emerge from slow-field modulation and damping dynamics without requiring globally phase-locked neuronal oscillations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Syncytial Mesh Model as a three-layered phenomenological effective theory that integrates local neural-mass dynamics, macroscale connectome coupling, and a slow continuous control field associated with astrocytic syncytial organization; the syncytial layer is posited to modulate neuronal excitability and coherence without directly generating fast electrophysiological activity, thereby providing a candidate mechanism for large-scale traveling waves, low-frequency modal structure, and scale-dependent synchronization probabilities.

Significance. If the scale-separation assumption and qualitative simulation matches can be placed on firmer quantitative footing, the framework would supply a mesoscale control mechanism for coherence phenomena not reducible to direct synaptic connectivity, with the analytic coherence model offering an explicit illustration of how slow-field modulation can produce synchronization statistics without global phase locking; this is a constructive strength of the work.

major comments (2)
  1. [abstract] Abstract, paragraph 2: The central claim that the three-layer architecture explains traveling-wave organization and low-frequency coordination rests on treating the syncytial mesh as a strictly slow, non-participatory modulatory field; no bounds on the timescale separation, no discussion of known fast gliotransmission or calcium signaling that could overlap delta/theta bands, and no parameter-free derivation are supplied, so the attribution of simulated patterns to the proposed control mechanism remains untested.
  2. [abstract] Numerical simulations (abstract): The reported generation of stable traveling-wave propagation, smooth phase gradients, and low-frequency modal structure is described only as 'qualitatively resembling' experimental patterns; without quantitative metrics, error bars, parameter tables, sensitivity analysis, or comparison against reduced models lacking the syncytial layer, it is not possible to assess whether the control-field component is load-bearing or whether the matches are robust.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review. The comments correctly identify areas where the presentation of assumptions and simulation validation can be strengthened. We respond to each major comment below and will incorporate revisions as indicated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract] Abstract, paragraph 2: The central claim that the three-layer architecture explains traveling-wave organization and low-frequency coordination rests on treating the syncytial mesh as a strictly slow, non-participatory modulatory field; no bounds on the timescale separation, no discussion of known fast gliotransmission or calcium signaling that could overlap delta/theta bands, and no parameter-free derivation are supplied, so the attribution of simulated patterns to the proposed control mechanism remains untested.

    Authors: The model is formulated explicitly as a phenomenological effective theory in which the syncytial mesh is defined to function as a slow modulatory field; this timescale separation is an input assumption of the framework rather than a derived bound. Fast gliotransmission and calcium events are coarse-grained into the effective description. We will add a clarifying paragraph in the revised introduction and discussion sections that references the relevant gliotransmission literature and states the scope of the model. A parameter-free derivation is not supplied because the approach is effective-theory based; we will qualify the abstract and main text to make this explicit. These additions address the concern without altering the core claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [abstract] Numerical simulations (abstract): The reported generation of stable traveling-wave propagation, smooth phase gradients, and low-frequency modal structure is described only as 'qualitatively resembling' experimental patterns; without quantitative metrics, error bars, parameter tables, sensitivity analysis, or comparison against reduced models lacking the syncytial layer, it is not possible to assess whether the control-field component is load-bearing or whether the matches are robust.

    Authors: The simulations in the manuscript are presented as qualitative illustrations of the framework's behavior. We agree that quantitative support would strengthen the assessment of the syncytial layer's contribution. In the revision we will add parameter tables, basic sensitivity analyses, and direct comparisons against reduced models that omit the syncytial field; where feasible we will also report simple robustness measures. These elements will be placed in the main text or supplementary information to demonstrate that the control-field component is load-bearing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Phenomenological effective theory tunes simulations to reproduce observed wave patterns by construction

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "Numerical simulations of the effective field dynamics generate stable traveling-wave propagation, smooth phase-gradient organization, and low-frequency modal structure qualitatively resembling experimentally reported infra-slow and delta/theta coordination patterns."

    The model is introduced as a phenomenological effective theory combining neural-mass dynamics with a slow control field. The simulations are presented as generating the target patterns, yet the abstract supplies no independent glial data or first-principles derivation of the field parameters; the qualitative match is therefore produced by tuning the effective dynamics to the observed statistics.

full rationale

The paper explicitly frames its framework as a 'phenomenological effective theory' whose numerical simulations are shown to generate traveling waves and modal structures 'qualitatively resembling' experimental patterns. No independent derivation of parameters from glial measurements or parameter-free bounds is indicated; the resemblance is therefore achieved through choice of the effective-field parameters rather than predicted from the model's premises. This constitutes one instance of fitted inputs called prediction. The scale-separation assumption is stated but functions as an input to the effective theory rather than a derived result. The central claim therefore reduces partially to its own construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The model is phenomenological and introduces a new mesoscale field whose properties are not derived from first principles or measured glial data in the abstract; several free parameters are therefore expected to be present even if not enumerated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Astrocytic syncytia can be represented as a continuous slow control field that modulates but does not generate fast electrophysiological activity.
    Invoked in the definition of the three-layered framework (abstract, paragraph 1).
invented entities (1)
  • syncytial mesh control field no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides scale-dependent modulation of neuronal excitability and coherence across spatial scales.
    New postulated dynamical layer introduced to explain traveling waves and low-frequency coordination; no independent falsifiable prediction supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5715 in / 1424 out tokens · 35745 ms · 2026-05-23T16:42:18.788346+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Müller, L., Chavane, F., Reynolds, J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2018). Cortical travelling waves: mechanisms and computational principles. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19 (5), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn. 2018.20

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn 2018

  2. [2]

    J., Patel, A., & Jacobs, J

    Zhang, H., Watrous, A. J., Patel, A., & Jacobs, J. (2018). Theta and alpha oscillations are traveling waves in the human neocortex. Neuron, 98(6), 1269–1281.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.05.019 2018

  3. [3]

    Buzsáki, G. (2006). Rhythms of the Brain. Oxford University Press

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    E., MacLeod, A

    Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. PNAS, 98(2), 676–682. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.676 2001

  5. [5]

    G., Del Gratta, C., Romani, G

    Mantini, D., Perrucci, M. G., Del Gratta, C., Romani, G. L., & Corbetta, M. (2007). Electrophysiological sig- natures of resting state networks in the human brain. PNAS, 104(32), 13170–13175. https://doi.org/10. 1073/pnas.0700668104 14 The Syncytial Mesh Model: A Biophysical Framework for Scale-Dependent Coherence in the Brain

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks

    Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005). The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks. PNAS, 102(27), 9673–9678. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504136102

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0504136102 2005

  7. [7]

    Pascual-Leone, A., Amedi, A., Fregni, F., & Merabet, L. B. (2005). Transcranial magnetic stimulation and neuroplasticity. Lancet Neurology, 4(3), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70041-1

    work page doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(05)70041-1 2005

  8. [8]

    R., Bergmann, T

    Siebner, H. R., Bergmann, T. O., Bestmann, S., Massimini, M., Johansen-Berg, H., Mochizuki, H., et al. (2009). Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a new tool in functional neuroimaging. Neuroscientist, 15 (3), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858408323971

    work page doi:10.1177/1073858408323971 2009

  9. [9]

    E., Rohenkohl, G., Wyart, V ., Woolrich, M

    Myers, N. E., Rohenkohl, G., Wyart, V ., Woolrich, M. W., Nobre, A. C., & Stokes, M. G. (2020). Testing sensory evidence against mnemonic templates. eLife, 9, e49223. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49223

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.49223 2020

  10. [10]

    Scemes, E., & Giaume, C. (2006). Astrocyte calcium waves: what they are and what they do. Glia, 54 (7), 716–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.20374

    work page doi:10.1002/glia.20374 2006

  11. [11]

    D., Woo, D

    Fields, R. D., Woo, D. H., & Basser, P. J. (2015). Glial biology in learning and cognition. Neuroscientist, 21(5), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858414557802

    work page doi:10.1177/1073858414557802 2015

  12. [12]

    V olterra, A., Liaudet, N., & Savtchouk, I. (2014). Astrocyte Ca2+ signalling: an unexpected complexity. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(5), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3725

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn3725 2014

  13. [13]

    Giaume, C., Koulakoff, A., Roux, L., Holcman, D., & Rouach, N. (2010). Astroglial networks: a step further in neuroglial and gliovascular interactions. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10. 1038/nrn2757

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    N., & Helmchen, F

    Nimmerjahn, A., Kirchhoff, F., Kerr, J. N., & Helmchen, F. (2004). Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo. Nature Methods, 1(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth706

    work page doi:10.1038/nmeth706 2004

  15. [15]

    Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2012). The economy of brain network organization. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(5), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3214

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn3214 2012

  16. [16]

    M., Du, Y ., Zhong, S., Wang, W., & Ferrand-Drake, M

    Kiyoshi, C. M., Du, Y ., Zhong, S., Wang, W., & Ferrand-Drake, M. (2018). Isopotentiality and gap junction coupling in astrocytic syncytia: key roles in neuroglial transmission.Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 402. https: //doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00402

    work page doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00402 2018

  17. [17]

    Sato, D., Murayama, M., Sakai, Y ., Murayama, Y ., Nakatani, K., Yamashita, A.,et al. (2018). Recurrent astrocyte waves drive circuit-level synchronization in the brain. Cell Reports, 25(8), 2202–2214.e5. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.089

    work page doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.089 2018

  18. [18]

    Palva, S., & Palva, J. M. (2012). Infra-slow fluctuations in electrophysiological recordings, blood-oxygenation- level-dependent signals, and psychophysical time series. NeuroImage, 62(4), 2201–2211. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.060

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.060 2012

  19. [19]

    G., Oliet, S

    Araque, A., Carmignoto, G., Haydon, P. G., Oliet, S. H., Robitaille, R., & V olterra, A. (2014). Gliotransmitters travel in time and space. Neuron, 81(4), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.02.007 2014

  20. [20]

    E., Cuddapah, V

    Nwaobi, S. E., Cuddapah, V . A., Patterson, K. C., Randolph, A. C., Olsen, M. L., & Sontheimer, H. (2016). Chapter 1 - The role of astrocytes in neurological disorders. In Astrocytes (pp. 1–39). Academic Press. https: //doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804383-8.00001-5

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-804383-8.00001-5 2016

  21. [21]

    A., & Schnitzer, M

    Nimmerjahn, A., Mukamel, E. A., & Schnitzer, M. J. (2009). Motor behavior activates Bergmann glial networks. Neuron, 62(3), 400–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.019 2009

  22. [22]

    Pannasch, U., Derangeon, M., Chever, O., & Rouach, N. (2013). Astroglial networks scale synaptic activity and plasticity. PNAS, 110(20), 8491–8496. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211235110

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1211235110 2013

  23. [23]

    E., & Yuste, R

    Poskanzer, K. E., & Yuste, R. (2016). Astrocytes regulate cortical state switching in vivo. PNAS, 113 (19), E2675–E2684. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520649113

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1520649113 2016

  24. [24]

    Kuga, N., Sasaki, T., Takahara, Y ., Matsuki, N., & Ikegaya, Y . (2011). Large-scale calcium waves traveling through astrocytic networks in vivo.Journal of Neuroscience, 31(7), 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1523/ JNEUROSCI.5319-10.2011

    work page 2011

  25. [25]

    Making memories last: the synaptic tagging and capture hypothesis

    Redondo, R. L., & Morris, R. G. M. (2011). Making memories last: the synaptic tagging and capture hypothesis. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2963

    work page doi:10.1038/nrn2963 2011

  26. [26]

    V olman, V ., Ben-Jacob, E., & Levine, H. (2007). The astrocyte as a gatekeeper of synaptic information transfer. Neural Computation, 19(2), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2007.19.2.303 15 The Syncytial Mesh Model: A Biophysical Framework for Scale-Dependent Coherence in the Brain

    work page doi:10.1162/neco.2007.19.2.303 2007

  27. [27]

    Zhou, Z., Okamoto, K., Onodera, J., Hiragi, T., Andoh, M., Ikawa, M., et al. (2021). Astrocytic cAMP modulates memory via synaptic plasticity. PNAS, 118(36), e2016584118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 2016584118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas 2021

  28. [28]

    Min, R., & Nevian, T. (2012). Astrocyte signaling controls spike timing-dependent depression at neocortical synapses. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3065

    work page doi:10.1038/nn.3065 2012

  29. [29]

    Ivanov, A., Zilberter, Y ., & Zilberter, M. (2022). Astrocytic plasticity: mechanisms and functional consequences. Glia, 70(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.24106

    work page doi:10.1002/glia.24106 2022

  30. [30]

    Goldberg, M., De Pittà, M., V olman, V ., Berry, H., & Ben-Jacob, E. (2010). Nonlinear gap junctions enable long-distance propagation of pulsating calcium waves in astrocyte networks.PLoS Computational Biology, 6(8), e1000909. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000909

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000909 2010

  31. [31]

    Lallouette, J., De Pittà, M., Ben-Jacob, E., & Berry, H. (2012). Sparse short-distance connections enhance cal- cium wave propagation in a 3D model of astrocyte networks. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 51. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00051

    work page doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00051 2012

  32. [32]

    V ., V olman, V ., Zorin, V ., & Postnov, D

    Verveyko, D. V ., V olman, V ., Zorin, V ., & Postnov, D. E. (2021). Functional implications of the topology of as- trocyte networks. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 15, 699820. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom. 2021.699820

    work page doi:10.3389/fncom 2021

  33. [33]

    J., Zempel, J

    He, B. J., Zempel, J. M., Snyder, A. Z., & Raichle, M. E. (2010). The temporal structures and functional sig- nificance of scale-free brain activity.Neuron, 66(3), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010. 04.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010 2010

  34. [34]

    A., Traub, R

    Whittington, M. A., Traub, R. D., & Jefferys, J. G. R. (2000). Synchronised oscillations in interneuron networks driven by metabotropic glutamate receptor activation. Nature, 373(6515), 612–615. https://doi.org/10. 1038/373612a0

    work page 2000

  35. [35]

    Breakspear, M., Heitmann, S., & Daffertshofer, A. (2017). Generative models of cortical oscillations: neurobi- ological implications of the Kuramoto model. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 613. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00613

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00613 2017

  36. [36]

    Zhong, S., Wang, X., Li, A., & Ge, Y . (2023). Developmental emergence of astrocytic syncytia in postnatal brain. Developmental Neurobiology, 83(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/dneu.22881

    work page doi:10.1002/dneu.22881 2023

  37. [37]

    Perea, G., Sur, M., & Araque, A. (2009). Tripartite synapses: astrocytes process and control synaptic information. Trends in Neurosciences, 32(8), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2009.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tins.2009.05.001 2009

  38. [38]

    H., & Rit, V

    Jansen, B. H., & Rit, V . G. (1995). Electroencephalogram and visual evoked potential generation in a mathemati- cal model of coupled cortical columns. Biological Cybernetics, 73(4), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00204371

    work page 1995

  39. [39]

    R., & Cowan, J

    Wilson, H. R., & Cowan, J. D. (1972). Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons. Biophysical Journal, 12(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86068-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(72)86068-5 1972

  40. [40]

    K., McIntosh, A

    Deco, G., Jirsa, V . K., McIntosh, A. R., Sporns, O., & Kotter, R. (2009). Key role of coupling, delay, and noise in resting brain fluctuations. PNAS, 106(25), 10302–10307. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901831106

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0901831106 2009

  41. [41]

    Sporns, O., Tononi, G., & Kötter, R. (2005). The human connectome: a structural description of the human brain. PLoS Computational Biology, 1(4), e42. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010042 2005

  42. [42]

    J., Sporns, O., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Thiran, J

    Honey, C. J., Sporns, O., Cammoun, L., Gigandet, X., Thiran, J. P., Meuli, R., & Hagmann, P. (2009). Predicting human resting-state functional connectivity from structural connectivity. PNAS, 106 (6), 2035–2040. https: //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811168106

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0811168106 2009

  43. [43]

    J., Deco, G., & Taylor, P

    Breakspear, M., Stam, C. J., Deco, G., & Taylor, P. N. (2010). Theoretical neuroscience of brain network dynam- ics. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 4, 127. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2010.00127

    work page doi:10.3389/fnsys.2010.00127 2010

  44. [44]

    Fanelli, A., Esposti, F., Ripamonti, M., & Signorini, M. (2009). Temporal and spatial analysis of astrocyte calcium waves.2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 6038–6041. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5334534

    work page doi:10.1109/iembs.2009.5334534 2009

  45. [45]

    Wang, Z., Tymianski, M., Jones, O., & Nedergaard, M. (1997). Impact of cytoplasmic calcium buffering on the spatial and temporal characteristics of intercellular calcium signals in astrocytes. The Journal of Neuroscience, 17(19), 7359–7371. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.17-19-07359.1997

    work page doi:10.1523/jneurosci.17-19-07359.1997 1997

  46. [46]

    De Pittà, M., V olman, V ., Berry, H., Parpura, V ., V olterra, A., & Ben-Jacob, E. (2012). Computational quest for understanding the role of astrocyte signaling in synaptic transmission and plasticity. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00098 16 The Syncytial Mesh Model: A Biophysical Framework for Scale-De...

    work page doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00098 2012

  47. [47]

    Asada, A., Ujita, S., Nakayama, R., Oba, S., Ishii, S., Matsuki, N., & Ikegaya, Y . (2015). Subtle modulation of ongoing calcium dynamics in astrocytic microdomains by sensory inputs. Physiological Reports, 3(10), e12454. https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12454 17

    work page doi:10.14814/phy2.12454 2015