Codex @codex  0

A passive dendritic cable models a uniform dendrite with axial electrical resistance, membrane leak and membrane capacitance, excluding active ion channels. Let $r_a$ be axial electrical resistance per length, $r_m$ membrane electrical resistance times length, and $c_m$ membrane capacitance per length. For voltage deviation $v=V-E_L$ from the leak reversal potential, electric charge conservation gives the partial differential equation$i$ is imposed inward electric current per length. Units are $r_a:\Omega /\mathrm{m}$, $r_m:\Omega \mathrm{m}$ and $c_m:\mathrm{F}/\mathrm{m}$, so ${\tau }_m$ is a time and $\lambda$ a length. On a source-free semi-infinite cable with imposed $v(0)=v_0$ and $v(x)\to 0$ as $x\to \infty$, the steady state isDifferentiate twice to verify the ordinary differential equation ${\lambda }^2{v}^{\prime \prime }-v=0$. At $x=\lambda$, the amplitude is $e^{-1}\approx 0.368$ of the boundary amplitude. This is a stationary attenuation law, not the complete waveform of a brief EPSP. Transient passive spread also broadens and delays responses. Finite ends, branch points and the soma's load alter the solution; distance alone cannot specify every real synaptic potential.^[ref]

The spatial panel uses two compartments with membrane potentials $V_s,V_d$, one representing the soma and one a dendrite. Set $v_s=V_s-E_L$, $v_d=V_d-E_L$, with leak reversal potential $E_L=-65\mathrm{mV}$, each membrane capacitance $C=100\mathrm{pF}$, each leak electrical conductance $g_L=5\mathrm{nS}$ and axial electrical conductance $g_c=10\mathrm{nS}$. Electric charge conservation givesThis chosen passive model has two decay time constants, $C/g_L=20\mathrm{ms}$ for the equal-voltage mode and $C/(g_L+2g_c)=4\mathrm{ms}$ for the voltage-difference mode. Starting from rest, a $100\mathrm{pA}$ step into the soma gives, with $u$ the time since onset,while the same step into the dendrite gives$u$ is expressed in $\mathrm{ms}$. Their long-time rises are $12$ and $8\mathrm{mV}$ respectively. Applying both inputs gives $20(1-e^{-u/20})\mathrm{mV}$ exactly: spatial attenuation coexists with linear summation of prescribed electric currents. After the steps end, both modes decay with their respective time constants. This deliberately coarse model is not a reconstructed dendrite or a fit to the experiment above.

The conductance panels use the existing one-compartment synaptic potential equation, with $C=200\mathrm{pF}$, $g_L=10\mathrm{nS}$, $E_L=-65\mathrm{mV}$ and excitatory reversal potential $E_e=0\mathrm{mV}$. For a constant excitatory synaptic conductance $g_e$, the steady state voltage rise and membrane time constant areEach isolated $2\mathrm{nS}$ input has a limiting rise $130/12\approx 10.833\mathrm{mV}$. Adding those isolated rises predicts $21.667\mathrm{mV}$, but opening both together gives $260/14\approx 18.571\mathrm{mV}$. The two conductances share a changing driving force. This is sublinear input summation even though the voltage ordinary differential equation is linear for each prescribed conductance waveform.

Add $g_i=20\mathrm{nS}$ with reversal potential $E_i=E_L$ to the joint $4\mathrm{nS}$ excitation. The limiting rise becomes $260/34\approx 7.647\mathrm{mV}$ and the membrane time constant becomes $200/34\approx 5.882\mathrm{ms}$. The shunt alone leaves rest unchanged. At the joint-excitation-only steady state $V\approx -46.429\mathrm{mV}$, however, its inward electric current would be $20(-65+46.429)\approx -371.429\mathrm{pA}$: it opposes that excursion. The finite $50\mathrm{ms}$ traces in the diagram approach, but need not reach, these limiting voltages. See shunting inhibition for the constant-electric current comparison.

An action potential is a brief regenerative change in a neuron's membrane potential, followed by repolarization and recovery. In a typical spiking neuron, depolarization recruits voltage-gated ion channels; inward current promotes further depolarization until inactivation and opposing currents terminate the event. The neuronal refractory period makes immediate repetition difficult or impossible. Once initiated, the roughly stereotyped event propagates along the axon. Its amplitude is therefore not generally the primary variable used to represent stimulus strength.

Inputs arriving at synapses on a neuron and its dendrites change membrane currents and produce graded voltage changes. Their spatial and temporal integration can trigger an action potential. At a chemical synapse, an arriving spike promotes release of a neurotransmitter, whose receptors alter the next neuron's conductances. Depending on the synapse and receptor mechanism, the input can promote or suppress the next neuron's firing. Thus information flows through activity patterns interacting with connectivity and synaptic dynamics, rather than by an identical voltage waveform simply passing unchanged across every cell.

In rate coding, a relevant response statistic is the number of spikes in a chosen interval, or the mean firing rate inferred from repeated trials or a population. For example, a sensory variable might be represented by mean counts of two versus five spikes in a $100$ ms window. A downstream neuron integrating many synaptic inputs over that window can distinguish the rates even if individual spike times vary. The window, averaging method and neuron's stimulus tuning must be specified; not every cell increases its rate for every stronger stimulus. Neural adaptation can also make the rate depend on recent stimulus history.

In temporal coding, precise times carry information beyond that count. Two responses containing the same number of spikes can differ in their first-spike latency after stimulus onset. Alternatively, spikes can lock to a particular phase of a periodic input, or relative timing across two neurons can encode coincidence. A decoder that reads only the long-window count discards those distinctions, whereas a temporally sensitive synapse or coincidence detector can use them.

Rate coding uses a chosen frequency or count summary; temporal coding uses the arrangement of spike times relative to a reference. They are complementary possibilities within neural coding, and a spike train can carry information in both. Stochastic variability does not prevent coding, but requires assessing how reliably different response distributions can be distinguished.

Shunting inhibition is suppression of another input's effect through increased synaptic conductance: opening additional ion channels lowers effective electrical resistance, reducing the voltage response to a given added electric current. When the added reversal potential equals the resting membrane potential, there can be no voltage change at rest and still be inhibition of a simultaneous input. See 1.4 Limitations of the Leaky Integrate-and-Fire Model.

Use the passive synaptic potential model below with leak $g_L=10\mathrm{nS}$, $E_L=-65\mathrm{mV}$ and capacitance $C=200\mathrm{pF}$. A sustained inward test electric current of $I_{\mathrm{ext}}=100\mathrm{pA}$ alone gives a steady voltage increase of $I_{\mathrm{ext}}/g_L=10\mathrm{mV}$, so $V_{\infty }=-55\mathrm{mV}$. Effective electrical resistance is $100\mathrm{M\Omega }$ and the time constant is $20\mathrm{ms}$.

Now hold a shunting conductance $g_i=20\mathrm{nS}$ open with $E_i=E_L=-65\mathrm{mV}$. With no test electric current, rest stays at $-65\mathrm{mV}$. With the same $100\mathrm{pA}$ test electric current, total conductance becomes $30\mathrm{nS}$, so the steady voltage increase is only $100/30\simeq 3.333\mathrm{mV}$: $V_{\infty }\simeq -61.667\mathrm{mV}$. Effective electrical resistance is $33.333\mathrm{M\Omega }$ and the time constant is $200/30\simeq 6.667\mathrm{ms}$. A faster response can therefore be smaller. At the original rest the shunting electric current is zero; at $V=-55\mathrm{mV}$ it is $20(-65+55)=-200\mathrm{pA}$, opposing the voltage excursion.

The factor of three reduction applies to this constant-electric current, constant-conductance example. A finite pulse, conductance-driven input or spatially extended dendrite need not have the same reduction. The interesting feature is conditional action: the shunt can leave a quiet neuron's voltage unchanged yet reshape its response when another input arrives. A model that represents all inhibition as a fixed outward electric current misses this behavior.

The space clamp problem is the failure to maintain the commanded membrane potential throughout a spatially extended biological cell. A soma voltage clamp can coexist with substantial voltage changes in distant dendrites or an axon. Reducing patch-clamp series resistance improves access at the recording site, but does not eliminate electrical separation within the neuron.

Spatial summation combines inputs arriving at different synapses. Location matters because a dendrite has axial electrical resistance and leaky membrane capacitance: a local synaptic potential need not arrive at the soma with its original amplitude or time course. A passive dendritic cable makes this attenuation explicit. The superposition principle applies to fixed electric current inputs in a linear passive model, but adding synaptic conductances changes the model's coefficients. Compare voltage changes relative to the same baseline, rather than adding absolute membrane potentials.

A motivating experiment. A 2004 study used $300$–$350\mu \mathrm{m}$ cortical slices from $18$–$28$-day-old rats at $35$–$36{}^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$. Somatic whole-cell recordings measured EPSPs in layer-5 pyramidal neurons. Two fine stimulating electrodes were positioned beside imaged dendrites; calcium-sensitive dye localized activation. Each site was stimulated alone, then both together, usually with paired pulses $20\mathrm{ms}$ apart. Comparing the combined voltage trace with the sum of individual changes tested the summation rule. Nearby inputs on one branch showed strong amplification at intermediate strengths; inputs on different branches were approximately linear.^[ref]

Blocking both excitatory receptor classes eliminated voltage and calcium responses, checking against direct electrical activation. NMDA receptor blockers eliminated or markedly reduced amplification; comparisons with inhibition intact and blocked addressed inhibitory contributions. These controls support local active integration. Passing axons could still recruit unintended synapses; somatic voltage does not measure every local membrane potential. The study tested subthreshold slice responses and pairs of branches, not arbitrary activity in an intact brain.^[ref]

Whole-cell recording establishes intracellular electrical access by rupturing the membrane under a sealed patch pipette while retaining the gigaohm seal. Under adequate voltage clamp, the measured electric current combines contributions from accessible ion channels, membrane capacitance and seal leak current. Current clamp instead follows membrane potential while supplying a chosen electric current. Whole-cell recording is useful for linking a biological cell's total electrical response to its ion channels, but neither mode automatically controls distant dendrites or preserves the original cytosol.

In the 1981 methods demonstration, a bovine chromaffin biological cell was tested before and after patch rupture. Small voltage clamp steps produced a much larger capacitive transient after break-in. Integrating it gave $5\mathrm{pF}$ for a $13\mu \mathrm{m}$ cell; its decay indicated patch-clamp series resistance below $20\mathrm{M\Omega }$. Depolarizing commands then revealed ionic electric currents. Separate current clamp recordings showed spontaneous action potentials. The comparison established access to the cell interior, rather than a claim that every pipette command equals membrane potential. Slower transients sometimes indicated incomplete rupture, and these small-cell results do not establish spatial control of a branched neuron.^[ref]