↓ Skip to main content

Data Driven Models of Short-Term Synaptic Plasticity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Data Driven Models of Short-Term Synaptic Plasticity
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2018.00032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elham Bayat Mokhtari, J. Josh Lawrence, Emily F. Stone

Abstract

Simple models of short term synaptic plasticity that incorporate facilitation and/or depression have been created in abundance for different synapse types and circumstances. The analysis of these models has included computing mutual information between a stochastic input spike train and some sort of representation of the postsynaptic response. While this approach has proven useful in many contexts, for the purpose of determining the type of process underlying a stochastic output train, it ignores the ordering of the responses, leaving an important characterizing feature on the table. In this paper we use a broader class of information measures on output only, and specifically construct hidden Markov models (HMMs) (known as epsilon machines or causal state models) to differentiate between synapse type, and classify the complexity of the process. We find that the machines allow us to differentiate between processes in a way not possible by considering distributions alone. We are also able to understand these differences in terms of the dynamics of the model used to create the output response, bringing the analysis full circle. Hence this technique provides a complimentary description of the synaptic filtering process, and potentially expands the interpretation of future experimental results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 26%
Engineering 2 11%
Physics and Astronomy 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 1 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,357,452
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#522
of 1,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,151
of 330,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,355 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,046 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.