Traub, et al - Got any specific ref?

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Aug 6 10:08:11 EST 2002


I'll reply here.

I couldn't come up with a copy of the Traub, et al ref, but i did
come up with the following, which is sufficient for the purpose of
the present discussion.

### This is G o o g l e's cache of
###
http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/R8239-13961-/news/bionet/audiology/9612.
newsm.
### G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as
we crawled the web.
### The page may have changed since that time. Click here
###
### To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
###
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:g3-w-O7dxxMC:http://iubio.
bio.indiana.edu/R8239-13961-/news/bionet/audiology/9612.newsm+A%20mec
hanism%20for%20generation%20of%20long-range%20synchronous%20fast
###
### Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page
### nor responsible for its content.
###
### From
news.indiana.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!swrinde!ihnp4.u
csd.edu!nntp.ucr.edu!biosci!LEX.LCCC.EDU!rcb1 Mon Dec  2 07:41:48
1996
### From: rcb1 at LEX.LCCC.EDU (Ron Blue)
### Newsgroups: bionet.audiology
### Subject: Re: phase-locking in cochlea
### Date: 2 Dec 1996 07:41:48 -0800
### Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular
Biology
### Lines: 115
### Sender: daemon at net.bio.net
### Distribution: world
### Message-ID:
<Pine.SCO.3.95.961202104202.6441I-100000 at lex.lccc.edu>
### References:
<Pine.OSF.3.95.961128160111.16949A-100000 at io.uwinnipeg.ca>
### NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
###
### On Thu, 28 Nov 1996, Bill Simpson wrote:
### > Several fairly old papers (e.g. Evans, 1975; Rose et al 1968)
show that
### > cochlear nerve fibres fire in a phase-locked way.  They fire on
the peaks.
### > I was wondering if there are recent papers discussing how this
is used for
### > the coding of frequency in the brain.
### >>>>CUT>>>>
### This should interest you.
### Subject: RE: long-range synchronous fast oscillations
###
### Ron Blue's  response to:
###
### >R D Traub, M A Whittington, I M Stanford
### > & J G R Jefferys A mechanism for generation of
### >long-range synchronous fast oscillations in the cortex
### >Nature 382, 621-624 (1996)
### >
### >Abstract:  Synchronous neuronal oscillations in the 30-70
### >Hz range, known as gamma oscillations, occur in the cortex
### >of many species.  This synchronization can occur over
### >large distances, and in some cases over multiple cortical
### >areas and in both hemispheres; it has been proposed to
### >underlie the binding of several features into a single
### >perceptual entity.  The mechanism by which coherent
### >oscillations are generated remain unclear, because they
### >often show zero or near-zero phase lags over long
### >distances. whereas much greater phase lags would be
### >expected from the slow speed of axonal conduction.  We
### >have previously shown that interneuron networks alone can
### >generate gamma oscillations; here we propose a simple
### >model to explain how an interconnected chain of such
### >networks can generate coherent oscillations.  The
### >model incorporates known properties of excitatory
### >pyramidal cells and inhibitory interneurons; it
### >predicts that when excitation of interneurons reaches a
### >level sufficient to induce pairs of spikes in rapid
### >succession (spike doublets), the network will generate
### >gamma oscillations that are synchronized on a millisecond
### >timescale from one end of the chain to the other.  We
### >show that in rat hippocampal slices interneurons do indeed
### >fire spike doublets under conditions in which gamma
### >oscillations are synchronized over several millimeters,
### >whereas they fire single spikes under other conditions.
### >Thus, know properties of neurons and local synaptic circuits
### >can account for tightly synchronized oscillations in
### >large neuronal ensembles.
### >>>>>>>>>>>>cut>>>>>
###
### more quoted out of context.
###
### >oscillations can be coherent over distances of up to 7 mm,
### >with zero or near-zero (<3ms) average phase lag.  Coherence
### >of in-phase gamma oscillations has also been observed between
### >primary and associational visual cortices, and across the
### >corpus callosum, where antidromic axonal conduction delays
### >are estimated to be 2.73 +/- 2.38 ms (ref 11).
### >>>>>>cut>>>>>
### >The coherent oscillation problem can be broken down into
### >two questions: how do local circuits, or even individual
### >cells, generate gamma-frequency oscillations, and what
### >happens when oscillating local circuits are synaptically
### >interconnected.
### ************************************************
### Why would be a more interesting question.  The why is because
### the nervious system is using reference wavelets to imbed
### information.  The single spike activity is the information
### and NOISE.  The double spike is instructional REFERENCE to
### SET the REFERENCE frequency.  This means that you should
### observe the double spike for olifaction, movement, vision,
### hearing, etc.   The reason that low frequencies destroy gamma
### is because lower reference frequencies exist.  The information
### is a HIGH frequency over write on the carrier or reference
frequency for
### a particular FUNCTION.  Function frequencies would be the one's
### already generated by research.
###
### Also the formation of neural oscillons, correlational opponent-
### process, phase shifting via wavelet distortion, and the TOTAL
### reference of ALL interacting information would be important
### to understanding what is happening.  Examples, illusions..
###
### Also the WEIGHT and timing of the
### information in the oscillation loops would be important
### as suggest by Hempfling's equations
### (http://www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics
###
### ******************************************
### >>>>>>CUT>>>>
### >A circuit model, using a 51-compartment axon/soma/dentritic
### >model for each inter neuron, accounts for the observed
### >properties of the network frequency on unitary inhibitory
### >postsynaptic conductance and time course.  The model works
### >when a sufficiently high synaptic connectivity exists.
### >the model also correctly predicts a break-up of the network
### >oscillation when a sufficently low frequency is attained.
### >In simulations,eight interneurons are sufficient to generate
### >synchronized gamma oscillations, when all-all connectivity
### >exists.  In such small local circuits, axon conduction
### >delays are probably negligible.
### >>>>>CUT>>>
### >This propert of doublet firing suggest a way that oscillators
### >might be connected together with conduction delays and still
### >oscillate coherently with near-zero phase lag.
### >>>>>CUT>>>
### >As doublet firing is reduced sufficiently, long-range
correlations
### >in the oscillations are attenuated.
### >>>CUT>>>
### ***************************************************
### I hope others will recognize the importance of this work even if
### you disagree with my interpretation of its meaning.
### Ron Blue
==================== end of Google =========================

The 'gripe' I have with respect to the way "oscillations" have been
invoked in Neuroscience has to do with the way unwarranted
'significance' is attributed to them, not with the fact that there's
detectable 'synchrony' in-there.

Of course there's detectable 'synchrony' in-there. Such 'synchrony'
is integrated within NDT [See, for instance, "ratchet-pawling" and
"whittling" [TD E/I-minimization 'component' processes], AoK, Ap5].

My 'gripe' has to do with the fact that the 'synchrony' is more of an
'artifact' of TD E/I-minimization than it is a 'mechanism' with
respect to neural information-processing.

The 'synchrony', itself, doesn't constitute the information. It's
just a 'shadow' of the information.

The information exists in the fleetingly-dynamic "ramp architecture"
[AoK, Ap3, 5, 5, 7] =be-cause= of the rigorous correlation of the
"ramp's" 'inclinations' with the global topologically-mapped One
Internal Fream of Reference Geometry.

Get it?

The information is in the rigorously-topologically-distributed
energy-flow gradients.

These fleetingly-dynamic energy-flow gradients are 'constructed',
on-the-fly, by the functioning of the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms.

It all works be-cause, as I've discussed, the evolutionary-'engineer'
constructed 'the' nervous system in rigorous accord with universal
energy-flow that is WDB2T.

The TD E/I-minimization mechanisms cross-correlate internal WDB2T
with external WDB2T, thereby converging upon the by-production of
behavioral manifestations that're, more or less, functional with
respect to survival within the experiential external environment.

The detectable 'synchrony' is analogous to what happens when one
pours one's "sweet, cold, stuff" into a glass on a warm and humid
summer day - an 'artifact', analogous to the condensation that
happens on the outside of the glass. Doesn't have anything functional
to do with respect to anything that determines anything specific to
the contents of the glass. 'Same' thing'd happen if it was beer in
the glass, or iced water, or iced tea, or iced coffee, etc., rather
than "sweet, cold, stuff".

It's just a 'shadow' of the goming and goings of TD E/I-minimized
"ramp architecture" the energy-flow gradients.

That 'synchrony' occurs derives, as is explained in AoK, in the
functioning of the globally-integrated TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
[which, I note, is what both Traub, et al. and Ron Blue are
discussing, without providing the necessary context in the functional
Neuroanatomy, when their discussions hinge upon
high-frequency-vs.-low-frequency stuff [ie., again, see the
Chronister, Sikes, and White, Jr. ref. "The Septo-hippocampal System:
Significance of the Subiculum", in The Septal Nuclei, 1974, p 123,
diagrams, in which, [photo-copied in the paper version of AoK, Ap5]
constitute experimentally-verified 'snapshots' of TD E/I-minimization
during learning. This ref's stuff triggered the development of NDT's
concepts of "topologically-distributed ratchet-pawling", and
"whittling". Traub, et al, and Blue 'skip-over' the
'learning'-correlated 'time'-frame
[WDB2T-correlated-energy-gradient-climbing] physical reality of the
functional Neuroanatomy, look at an end-correlate of TD
E/I-minimization, and call such 'everything', as if it finds its
existence 'magically' :-]

As is explained in AoK [Ap5, 6, 7], what actually happens is that
there is a topologically-distributed [TD] intermingling of
protopathic and epicritic activation within many 'nuclear' areas,
which include cortex. The protopathic activation generates 'chance'
local TD E/I-minimization, within, for instance the neuronal
structure of the cortex. These local TD E/I-minimizations are
'latched' when they're detected by the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms
[reticular formation<->cerebelum,
hypothalamus<->hippocampus<->amygdala, basal ganglia<->substantia
nigra, prefrontal cortex<->the-rest-of-the-brain, and, in general,
the globally-'antagonistic, rigorously-topological-mapping of the
epicritic and protopathic systems, including =many= small nuclear
groups, all of which is rigorously-topologically-mapped within the
One Internal Frame of Reference [IFR] Geometry, and all of which is
discussed, with reference to experimental results, in AoK and the
refs cited in AoK.]

The result is that "ramp-architecture"-implementing loop-circuits are
set-up, dynamically, in 'nuclear' areas, including cortex. It's the
energy-flow directionality inherent in these loop-circuits, that is
rigorously-topologically-mapped within the IFR, that constitutes the
'information'. [Again, nervous systems' Awesome
information-processing power derives in  everything's being
'translated' into the one internal 'language'of energy-flow
directionality.

But there's nothing in-there that's 'oscillating'. It looks like
"oscillation", but it ain't "oscillation".

"Oscillation" would, infact, degrade nervous system functionality,
because, where energy-flow gradients are necessary, it'd establish
energy-flow 'plateaus', that'd 'erase' IFR-correlated directionality
[information] rather than encode it.

What appears to be 'oscillation' is =just= artifact-stuff, that's
detectable, but which, itself, has no information-processing role.
It's a 'shadow' that's cast by the functioning of the TD
E/I-minimization mechanisms -
'condensation'-on-the-outside-of-the-'glass' stuff.

What's there is fleetingly-dynamic ["Type-2"; "gears-in-clock"; AoK,
Ap5] 'synchronization', but, other than constituting a 'movie' of the
TD E/I-minimization dynamics, it's superfluous.

It varies continuously, nothing in-it ever "oscillating" in any
steady-state way.

To understand such, one has to comprehend the reality of the "special
topological homeomorphism" [AoK, "Short Paper", Ap3, 5, 7].

The mapping of the body-environment interface [skin, retina, cochlea,
tongue-surface, olfactory epithelium, and, via intervening,
coordinate-translation "crumpled-bag" nuclei, the effectors] is
rigorously-'preserved', in a way that, nevertheless, powerfully
modifies itself as a direct result of experience, throughout the
extent of the nervous system. Because it is so
rigorously-topologically-mapped, it's complete non-sense to say that
a neuron, over here, and a neuron, over there, are participating in
'synchrony' "because" of anything that's 'intrinsic' to either
neuron.

It just cannot be, because the neuron over here is mapped to one
locus on the body-environment interface, and the neuron over there is
mapped to another locus on the body-environment interface [most-often
via many relays].

So, if it were the case that the something 'intrinsic' to the neuron
over here, and something intrinsic to the neuron over there
'determined' the 'synchrony', then, all the work that the
evolutionary 'engineer' accomplished, in order to construct, and
preserve, the mapping of the body-environment interface gets
'tossed-out'. ["Neural topology? What neural topology?"]

The "oscillation" view would have 'magic' happen so that the neuron
over here, which is topologically-mapped to this locus on the
body-environment interface is 'synchronized' with the neuron over
there, which is topologically-mapped to that locus on the
body-environment interface, but "their synchronous activation still
encodes 'different information' with respect to their different
body-environment-interface loci.

"Yeah, sure."

Please Forgive me for saying-it-plain: The only thing that underpins
this "oscillation" stuff is folks' glomming-on to the 'latest, and
greatest' new stuff, in order to squeeze past the 'publish or perish'
rule that rules [dictates-to] 'science'. The same thing has happened
over and over again during the history of Science. [For historical
background, see the D. J. Boorstein ref., _The Discoverers_, 1985,
that's cited in AoK.]

The detectable 'synchrony' is only a non-information-carrying
artifact of the actions of the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms. It's a
'picture' of relatively-TD E/I-minimized activation 'states', but,
beyond verifying the actuality of TD E/I-minimization [as in the
Chronister, et al. ref], the 'synchrony', itself, is nothing. And
just focusing upon the 'synchrony' 'tosses-out' almost all of what's
significant in nervous systems' information-processing dynamics. [See
the Chronister, et al ref, which maps [a 'subset' of] the [global] TD
E/I-minimization convergence dynamics, and so, doesn't fall into this
'there-is-everything' Error.]

Again, the Proof is in the topological-mapping with respect to the
body-environment interface.

One cannot maintain this TD-mapping via neurons supposedly
'synchronized', via stuff 'intrinsic' to the neurons. It occurs as a
by-product of =TD= E/I-minimization within the entirity of the
supersystem. 'Discard', or 'ignore' all of the topological stuff, any
one is left having to invoke 'magic'.

=OF COURSE= NDT provides the mechanisms whose functioning is
correlated to the detectable 'synchrony' - the TD E/I-minimization
mechanisms [AoK, "Short Paper", Ap3 , 5, 7].

But NDT simultaneously exposes the 'synchrony' to be
non-information-pertinent artifact-of-the-fact-of-TD E/I-minimization
stuff.

Part of the problem has been that the resolution of the detection
apparatus is still not commensurate with what's actually going-on
in-there. The detection apparatus, itself, still 'tosses-out' almost
all of the fleetingly-dynamic "ramp architecture" energy-flow
gradients.

Forgive me, Please: Folks need to Learn the Neuroanatomy, and how its
functioning Necessisarily derives-in, and preserves, the supersystem
topology, and stop trying to stuff the whole 'brain' into individual
neurons.

This
looking-to-neurons-without-seeing-the-globally-integrated-neural-topo
logy-yet-saying-'there-it-is' is a classic case of "not seeing the
forest for the trees".

I mean no 'offense'.

I Mean just-the-opposite stuff.

k. p. collins [with spirit 'groaning' because I understand that
what's here is 'Hard', and will, thus,
'strengthen-the-bars-of-my-cage. "Oh well"]

"Ron Blue" wrote in message <002001c23ccf$a7b02170$fa0e1943 at ron>...
>
>> Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>> >mat wrote in message
>> ><43525ce3.0208050245.702a29ca at posting.google.com>...
>> >>[...]
>> >>You claim the natural tendency of neural tissue is to
>> >>minimize excitation, whereas in fact quite the opposite is true
>> (see
>> >>the work of Traub et al.).
>> >
>> >Got a specific ref[?] ("anyone, anyone anyone[?"] :-)
>
>Traub et al (1996) reported that the brain would coherently
oscillate within
>two milliseconds after a doublet spike that allows synchronous
neuronal
>oscillations in the 30-70 hertz range. The coherent synchronous
oscillation
>will occur over large distance. Oscillations slower that 30-hertz
will cause
>the system to become discoherent.
>
>Traub, R.D.; Whittington, M.A.; Stanford, I.M.; & Jefferys, J.G.R.
>(1996) A mechanism for generation of long-range synchronous fast
>oscillations in the cortex. Nature 382, 621-624
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list