[Eeglablist] Fw: Re: Open online discussion: How Do Cable Theory and AMPA/GABA Balance Compare in Their Contributions to 1/f?

[Евгений Машеров]

> Forwarding this important feedback from Antonios Dougalis to my last email, as I don’t think it went through the list.
> 
> Cedric
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> On Tuesday, 04/14/26 at 20:51 Antonios Dougalis <antoniosdougalis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1. In a nutshell, no receptor is 'difficult' to model they are all really simple in their description but dependent on a few extra parameters depending on their working.
>>
>> 2. In terms of 1 over f...It does not matter what kind of receptors you include in the model, what matters is their decay kinetics.
>>

It may be effect not only from decay, but from rising edge duration too.
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/sccn/OneOverF/discussions/1*discussioncomment-15206587__;Iw!!Mih3wA!Evqu-946YBgP3YFhfYLdSzHM02nvJUv1FL4p3e6AKTwymE0e8PWtjBf-BecFpc_0FWMl1zduFuOP28zp9UJZ_mdThDM$ 

>> You mention GABAB receptors which are not direct ion channels unlike AMPA, NMDA and GABAA. GABAB receptors have a slow offset kinetic but also are very slow to open since these are embedded membrane G proteins coupled receptors to inwardly rectifying potassium currents (Kir). So these wouyld be deems as a cnstant backrounf current ina saturated in vivo enviroment.
>>
>> The notions of tonic NMDA receptors result in a fluctuating noise like conductance. These mechanisms are not specific to NMDA (all you need is a fluctuating fast conductance) but Destxhje and collegaues have shown that they prompt criticality in brain responses (simulation without this fluctuating conductance are boring and repetitively identical). I doubt mechanistically is it has to do anything with 1/f exponent (but perhaps it could affect the offset, I have not run any simulations similar to this).
>>
>> Regarding ideas of HCN currents (Ih current of also know as hyperpolarisation activated cation currents), these are postsynaptic currents that affect dendritic synaptic integration when they open. I also doubt if they contribute to 1/f directly but certainly they affect how synaptic potential amplify.
>>
>> My take is this...
>>
>> 1. 1/f is defined dynamically by the algebraic sum of the synaptic currents
>> 2. 1/f can be sculptured by postsynaptic dendritic conductances
>> 3. Constant, persistently activated background currents give the standard shape of 1/ f (power-law). The may define exponent and offset
>> 3. Fast synaptic integration changes on demand/dynamically the 1/f exponent and offset
>>
>> All these prediction are testable in single neurons (i have already provided evidence in GitHub over some of these aspects)
>>

It seems to me that two other components may contribute, manifesting at the edges of the frequency band and therefore strongly influencing spectral slope estimates (the "alpha" value).
Ionic potential oscillations in the low-frequency range and action potentials in the high-frequency range.

>> To my knowledge, no progress has been made by any delegate on any front that would lead to some consensus or to some combined manuscript even though a plan of action has been formulated. I hope we can change this in the future.
>> As i have said and volunteered in the past, i can take care of cellular and network simulations in various configurations (as a cellular and network neurophysiologist). For instance the quartet listed above under 'my take is this' is testable and is a start. Who want to contribute further from this though, this is unknown
>>
>> BR
>>
>> Antonios
>>