Sætra, Marte J. Einevoll, Gaute T. Halnes, Geir Model comparison for scenario with low frequency firing. <p>Simulations on the PR model and edPR model when both models are driven by a constant input, giving them a firing rate of about 1 Hz. Simulations covered one hour (3600 s) of biological time. <b>(A-D)</b> A 10 s sample of the dynamics of the somatic membrane potential <i>ϕ</i><sub>sm</sub> and dendritic (free) Ca<sup>2+</sup> concentration in the PR model <b>(A-B)</b> and edPR model <b>(C-D)</b>. This regular firing pattern was sustained over the full 3600 s simulation in both models (inset panels). <b>(D)</b> Of the total amount of intracellular Ca<sup>2+</sup>, only 1% (as plotted) was assumed to be free (unbuffered). <b>(E-F)</b> Ionic reversal potentials and <b>(G-J)</b> ion concentrations in the edPR model did not vary on a long time scale. Indices <i>i</i>, <i>e</i>, s, and <i>d</i> indicate <i>intracellular, extracellular, soma</i>, and <i>dendrite</i>, respectively. <b>(A-J)</b> Stimulus onset was <i>t</i> = 10 s in both models, and stimulus strength was <i>i</i><sub>stim</sub> = 0.78<i>μ</i>A/cm<sup>2</sup> in the PR model <b>(A-B)</b> and <i>i</i><sub>stim</sub> = 27pA in the edPR model <b>(C-J)</b>. See the Parameterizations section in <a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007661#sec013" target="_blank">Methods</a> for a full description of the parameters used.</p> homeostatic mechanisms;multicompartmental neuron model;extracellular space;edPR model diverges;PR model;edPR model;hippocampal CA 3 neuron;ion concentrations;electrodiffusive ion concentration dynamics;ion-specific leakage currents 2020-04-29
    https://plos.figshare.com/articles/figure/Model_comparison_for_scenario_with_low_frequency_firing_/12217298
10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007661.g006