@article{ Konig_etal96,
  author = {König, P. and Engel, A. K. and Singer, W.},
  title = {Integrator or coincidence detector? The role of the cortical neuron
	revisited},
  journal = {Trends in Neurosciences},
  year = {1996},
  volume = {719},
  pages = {130-137},
  number = {4},
  en_number = {1.16:36},
  summary = {They argue strongly for the role of cortical neurons as coincidence
	detectors. They try to refute Shadlen and Newsome by saying that
	not so many synaptic potentials are coming in at each neuron as S+N
	assumed and that, furthermore, the low reliability of synapses makes
	the number of synaptic events going thru to the postsynaptic neuron
	even smaller. So, therefore, they argue, the argument of S+N is wrong
	because it assumes that the 'amplitude' (I presume they mean frequency)
	of the input and output of the neuron is the same, and this is not
	true. I must admit I do not really understand this argumentation.
	They also attack the balanced inhibition hypothesis. They argue that
	inhibition is usually broader tuned than excitation and that therefore,
	even if excit. and inh. happened to be exactly balanced for one particular
	stimulus, this would change if a second stimulus would be added or
	if the stimulus itself would change. Likewise, the observed oscillations
	correspond to alternating inhibition and excitation. They argue,
	that S+N should therefore respond in a regular fashion which is not
	observed. }
}

{"_id":"zRoNuMvNdhLz8yCt8","bibbaseid":"knig-engel-singer-integratororcoincidencedetectortheroleofthecorticalneuronrevisited-1996","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2015-02-08T05:14:48.798Z","title":"Integrator or coincidence detector? The role of the cortical neuron revisited","author_short":["König, P.","Engel, A.<nbsp>K.","Singer, W."],"year":1996,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://cnslab.mb.jhu.edu/niebase.bib","bibdata":{"author":["König, P.","Engel, A. K.","Singer, W."],"author_short":["König, P.","Engel, A.<nbsp>K.","Singer, W."],"bibtex":"@article{ Konig_etal96,\n author = {König, P. and Engel, A. K. and Singer, W.},\n title = {Integrator or coincidence detector? The role of the cortical neuron\n\trevisited},\n journal = {Trends in Neurosciences},\n year = {1996},\n volume = {719},\n pages = {130-137},\n number = {4},\n en_number = {1.16:36},\n summary = {They argue strongly for the role of cortical neurons as coincidence\n\tdetectors. They try to refute Shadlen and Newsome by saying that\n\tnot so many synaptic potentials are coming in at each neuron as S+N\n\tassumed and that, furthermore, the low reliability of synapses makes\n\tthe number of synaptic events going thru to the postsynaptic neuron\n\teven smaller. So, therefore, they argue, the argument of S+N is wrong\n\tbecause it assumes that the 'amplitude' (I presume they mean frequency)\n\tof the input and output of the neuron is the same, and this is not\n\ttrue. I must admit I do not really understand this argumentation.\n\tThey also attack the balanced inhibition hypothesis. They argue that\n\tinhibition is usually broader tuned than excitation and that therefore,\n\teven if excit. and inh. happened to be exactly balanced for one particular\n\tstimulus, this would change if a second stimulus would be added or\n\tif the stimulus itself would change. Likewise, the observed oscillations\n\tcorrespond to alternating inhibition and excitation. They argue,\n\tthat S+N should therefore respond in a regular fashion which is not\n\tobserved. }\n}","bibtype":"article","en_number":"1.16:36","id":"Konig_etal96","journal":"Trends in Neurosciences","key":"Konig_etal96","number":"4","pages":"130-137","summary":"They argue strongly for the role of cortical neurons as coincidence detectors. They try to refute Shadlen and Newsome by saying that not so many synaptic potentials are coming in at each neuron as S+N assumed and that, furthermore, the low reliability of synapses makes the number of synaptic events going thru to the postsynaptic neuron even smaller. So, therefore, they argue, the argument of S+N is wrong because it assumes that the 'amplitude' (I presume they mean frequency) of the input and output of the neuron is the same, and this is not true. I must admit I do not really understand this argumentation. They also attack the balanced inhibition hypothesis. They argue that inhibition is usually broader tuned than excitation and that therefore, even if excit. and inh. happened to be exactly balanced for one particular stimulus, this would change if a second stimulus would be added or if the stimulus itself would change. Likewise, the observed oscillations correspond to alternating inhibition and excitation. They argue, that S+N should therefore respond in a regular fashion which is not observed.","title":"Integrator or coincidence detector? The role of the cortical neuron revisited","type":"article","volume":"719","year":"1996","bibbaseid":"knig-engel-singer-integratororcoincidencedetectortheroleofthecorticalneuronrevisited-1996","role":"author","urls":{},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["integrator","coincidence","detector","role","cortical","neuron","revisited","könig","engel","singer"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["ErLXoH8mqSjESnrN5"]}