↓ Skip to main content

On the Validity of Neural Mass Models

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
On the Validity of Neural Mass Models
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2021
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2020.581040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolás Deschle, Juan Ignacio Gossn, Prejaas Tewarie, Björn Schelter, Andreas Daffertshofer

Abstract

Modeling the dynamics of neural masses is a common approach in the study of neural populations. Various models have been proven useful to describe a plenitude of empirical observations including self-sustained local oscillations and patterns of distant synchronization. We discuss the extent to which mass models really resemble the mean dynamics of a neural population. In particular, we question the validity of neural mass models if the population under study comprises a mixture of excitatory and inhibitory neurons that are densely (inter-)connected. Starting from a network of noisy leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, we formulated two different population dynamics that both fall into the category of seminal Freeman neural mass models. The derivations contained several mean-field assumptions and time scale separation(s) between membrane and synapse dynamics. Our comparison of these neural mass models with the averaged dynamics of the population reveals bounds in the fraction of excitatory/inhibitory neuron as well as overall network degree for a mass model to provide adequate estimates. For substantial parameter ranges, our models fail to mimic the neural network's dynamics proper, be that in de-synchronized or in (high-frequency) synchronized states. Only around the onset of low-frequency synchronization our models provide proper estimates of the mean potential dynamics. While this shows their potential for, e.g., studying resting state dynamics obtained by encephalography with focus on the transition region, we must accept that predicting the more general dynamic outcome of a neural network via its mass dynamics requires great care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 22%
Neuroscience 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 20 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,752,003
of 24,224,854 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#640
of 1,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,933
of 510,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#16
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,224,854 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 510,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.