Traub, et al - Got any specific ref?

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Tue Aug 6 12:19:34 EST 2002


Whoops-a-daiseies!

the appropriate ref, is not Chronister, et al, but The Elazar and
Adey, "Spectral Analysis of Low Frequency Components in the
Electrical Activity of the Hippocampus During Learning",
Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Amsterdam, 1967,
Vol. 23, pp 225-240.

I Apologize for having to post the whole, long msg again, but it's a
matter of not misrepresenting what's in cited work, done by others.

k. p. collins

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>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%20me
c
>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,

CORRECTION:

The above citation [although Wonderful stuff] is incorrect in the
context of this msg. The appropriate ref is: Elazar and Adey,
"Spectral Analysis of Low Frequency Components in the Electrical
Activity of the Hippocampus During Learning", Electroencephalography
and Clinical Neurophysiology, Amsterdam, 1967, Vol. 23, pp 225-240.

kpc

>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-top
o
>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