Hide metadata

dc.date.accessioned2018-07-17T08:00:22Z
dc.date.available2018-07-17T08:00:22Z
dc.date.created2017-09-27T15:17:05Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationTveito, Aslak Jæger, Karoline Horgmo Lines, Glenn Terje Paszkowski, Lukasz Sundnes, Joakim Edwards, Andrew Mäki-Marttunen, Tuomo Halnes, Geir Einevoll, Gaute . An evaluation of the accuracy of classical models for computing the membrane potential and extracellular potential for neurons. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 2017, 11
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/62289
dc.description.abstractTwo mathematical models are part of the foundation of Computational neurophysiology; (a) the Cable equation is used to compute the membrane potential of neurons, and, (b) volume-conductor theory describes the extracellular potential around neurons. In the standard procedure for computing extracellular potentials, the transmembrane currents are computed by means of (a) and the extracellular potentials are computed using an explicit sum over analytical point-current source solutions as prescribed by volume conductor theory. Both models are extremely useful as they allow huge simplifications of the computational efforts involved in computing extracellular potentials. However, there are more accurate, though computationally very expensive, models available where the potentials inside and outside the neurons are computed simultaneously in a self-consistent scheme. In the present work we explore the accuracy of the classical models (a) and (b) by comparing them to these more accurate schemes. The main assumption of (a) is that the ephaptic current can be ignored in the derivation of the Cable equation. We find, however, for our examples with stylized neurons, that the ephaptic current is comparable in magnitude to other currents involved in the computations, suggesting that it may be significant—at least in parts of the simulation. The magnitude of the error introduced in the membrane potential is several millivolts, and this error also translates into errors in the predicted extracellular potentials. While the error becomes negligible if we assume the extracellular conductivity to be very large, this assumption is, unfortunately, not easy to justify a priori for all situations of interest.en_US
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherFrontiers Research Foundation
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleAn evaluation of the accuracy of classical models for computing the membrane potential and extracellular potential for neuronsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.creator.authorTveito, Aslak
dc.creator.authorJæger, Karoline Horgmo
dc.creator.authorLines, Glenn Terje
dc.creator.authorPaszkowski, Lukasz
dc.creator.authorSundnes, Joakim
dc.creator.authorEdwards, Andrew
dc.creator.authorMäki-Marttunen, Tuomo
dc.creator.authorHalnes, Geir
dc.creator.authorEinevoll, Gaute
cristin.unitcode185,15,5,35
cristin.unitnameForskningsgruppen for biomedisinsk informatikk
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.cristin1499040
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience&rft.volume=11&rft.spage=&rft.date=2017
dc.identifier.jtitleFrontiers in Computational Neuroscience
dc.identifier.volume11
dc.identifier.pagecount18
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2017.00027
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-64875
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn1662-5188
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/62289/2/frontiersincomneurosci.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion


Files in this item

Appears in the following Collection

Hide metadata

Attribution 4.0 International
This item's license is: Attribution 4.0 International