Spatial summation

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]

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.