In?vitro and in?vivo spiking activity clearly differ. Whereas networks in?vitro develop strong bursts separated by periods of very little spiking activity, in?vivo cortical networks show continuous activity. This is puzzling considering that both networks presumably share similar single-neuron dynamics and plasticity rules. We propose that the defining difference between in?vitro and in?vivo dynamics is the strength of external input. In vitro , networks are virtually isolated, whereas in?vivo every brain area receives continuous input. We analyze a model of spiking neurons in which the input strength, mediated by spike rate homeostasis, determines the characteristics of the dynamical state. In more detail, our analytical and numerical results on various network topologies show consistently that under increasing input, homeostatic plasticity generates distinct dynamic states, from bursting, to close-to-critical, reverberating, and irregular states. This implies that the dynamic state of a neural network is not fixed but can readily adapt to the input strengths. Indeed, our results match experimental spike recordings in?vitro and in?vivo : The in?vitro bursting behavior is consistent with a state generated by very low network input ( 0.1 % ), whereas in?vivo activity suggests that on the order of 1% recorded spikes are input driven, resulting in reverberating dynamics. Importantly, this predicts that one can abolish the ubiquitous bursts of in?vitro preparations, and instead impose dynamics comparable to in?vivo activity by exposing the system to weak long-term stimulation, thereby opening new paths to establish an in?vivo -like assay in?vitro for basic as well as neurological studies.
展开▼
