Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Scale-freeness or partial synchronization in ne...

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

  • 1-s2.0-S1053811918302805-main

    Rights statement: This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in NeuroImage. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in NeuroImage, 180, Part B, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.070

    Accepted author manuscript, 1.27 MB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 1/01/50

    Available under license: CC BY-NC-ND: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Scale-freeness or partial synchronization in neural mass phase oscillator networks: Pick one of two?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published
  • Andreas Daffertshofer
  • Robert Ton
  • Bastian Pietras
  • Morten L. Kringelbach
  • Gustavo Deco
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>15/10/2018
<mark>Journal</mark>NeuroImage
Issue numberPart B
Volume180
Number of pages14
Pages (from-to)428-411
Publication StatusPublished
Early online date4/04/18
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Modeling and interpreting (partial) synchronous neural activity can be a challenge. We illustrate this by deriving the phase dynamics of two seminal neural mass models: the Wilson-Cowan firing rate model and the voltage-based Freeman model. We established that the phase dynamics of these models differed qualitatively due to an attractive coupling in the first and a repulsive coupling in the latter. Using empirical structural connectivity matrices, we determined that the two dynamics cover the functional connectivity observed in resting state activity. We further searched for two pivotal dynamical features that have been reported in many experimental studies: (1) a partial phase synchrony with a possibility of a transition towards either a desynchronized or a (fully) synchronized state; (2) long-term autocorrelations indicative of a scale-free temporal dynamics of phase synchronization. Only the Freeman phase model exhibited scale-free behavior. Its repulsive coupling, however, let the individual phases disperse and does not allow for a transition into a synchronized state. The Wilson-Cowan phase model, by contrast, could switch into a (partially) synchronized state, but it did not generate long-term correlations although being located close to the onset of synchronization, i.e. in its critical regime. That is, the phase-reduced models can display one of the two dynamical features, but not both.

Bibliographic note

This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in NeuroImage. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in NeuroImage, 180, Part B, 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.070