View source for Talk:Spike frequency adaptation

This paper is a nice compact overview of models and functional consequences of adaptation. I have just a few brief comments/corrections:

Fig.1 caption: specify whether leaky or perfect IF. 

First paragraph: of their spike response FOLLOWING AN INITIAL INCREASE. 

is a more general phenomenon, AND spike-frequency adaptation 

several possible mechanisms BY which neurones…

2a) …modulated by acetylcholine amongst other meuromodulators. 
2b) current or THE after-hyperpolarization …see Fig.1B …after a spike or burst OF SPIKES. 

Indeed, ionic currents WITH a wide range…

EXAMPLE MODELS

All three mechanisms discussed ABOVE were…

Voltage-dependent mechanisms...

Before the "Nonlinear adaptation in simple models section", you need to clarify the difference between the model supported by the equations (Izhikevich) and the adaptive exponential IF - as it stands the paragraph ends a bit flat without a clear conclusion of whether these are two sides of the same coin. 

A-current model: is there anything missing in the \tau{alpha,beta} = …equation? 

Morris Lecar with adaptation:  typo: on the the bifurcation BY which the neuron..
After the equations: DEPENDING on the choice of THE parameter…

Consequences - Dynamical

The authors should also cite a recent paper that analyzes the difference in gain and coherence/coding properties between threshold and AHP-type adaptation:

J Benda, L Maler and A Longtin (2010) Linear versus nonlinear signal transmission in integrate-and-fire models with adaptation currents or dynamic thresholds. J. Neurophysiol 104, 2806-2820. 

low-threshold CALCIUM…HYPERPOLARIZATION …such neurons ACT as integrators…

"to terminate a spike period": "the spiking phase" is better

Functional:

encode information IN a …Therefore, the AFOREMENTIONED switch…

Puccini: input, so TO the temporal derivative…

Kilpatrick: that fire TOGETHER AND regularly  for some time?

== Response  ==

Thank you for your good suggestions, and apologies for the many typos. We adjusted the manuscript in the following way:

Fig.1 caption: specify whether leaky or perfect IF.
-> Added

Before the "Nonlinear adaptation in simple models section", you need to clarify the difference between the model supported by the equations (Izhikevich) and the adaptive exponential IF - as it stands the paragraph ends a bit flat without a clear conclusion of whether these are two sides of the same coin.
-> We reformulated the section, hopefully it is more clear now.

A-current model: is there anything missing in the \tau{alpha,beta} = …equation?
-> We reformatted the equation, hopefully it is clearer this way.

The authors should also cite a recent paper that analyzes the difference in gain and coherence/coding properties between threshold and AHP-type adaptation: J Benda, L Maler and A Longtin (2010) Linear versus nonlinear signal transmission in integrate-and-fire models with adaptation currents or dynamic thresholds. J. Neurophysiol 104, 2806-2820.
-> Added the paper

All the mentioned errors have been corrected.