1: %%
2: % Ver. 040401
3: \documentstyle[pre,preprint,aps]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[prb,aps]{revtex}
5: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
6: %
7: \tightenlines
8: %New Commands
9: \newcommand{\siml}{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}
10: \newcommand{\simg}{\stackrel{>}{\sim}}
11: %
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: \draft
15: %\baselineskip=0.5\baselineskip
16:
17: \title{
18: %Dynamics and synchronization
19: %of stochastic ensembles
20: %with time delayed couplings:
21: An augmented moment method for
22: stochastic ensembles \\
23: with delayed couplings:
24: II. FitzHugh-Nagumo model
25: %Dynamical mean-field theory of noisy neuron ensembles \\
26: %Dynamics and synchronization of noisy neuron ensembles \\
27: %with time-delayed couplings
28: %\footnote{e-print: cond-mat/0311183}
29: }
30: \author{
31: Hideo Hasegawa
32: \footnote{e-mail: hasegawa@u-gakugei.ac.jp}
33: }
34: \address{
35: Department of Physics, Tokyo Gakugei University,
36: Koganei, Tokyo 184-8501, Japan
37: }
38: \date{\today}
39: \maketitle
40: %
41: \begin{abstract}
42: Dynamics of FitzHugh-Nagumo (FN)
43: neuron ensembles with time-delayed couplings
44: subject to white noises,
45: has been studied by using both
46: direct simulations and
47: a semi-analytical augmented moment method (AMM)
48: which has been proposed
49: in a preceding paper
50: [H. Hasegawa, Phys. Rev E {\bf xx}, yyyy (2004)].
51: For $N$-unit FN neuron ensembles, AMM transforms original
52: $2N$-dimensional {\it stochastic} delay differential equations
53: (SDDEs) to infinite-dimensional {\it deterministic} DEs
54: for means and correlation functions
55: of local and global variables.
56: Infinite-order recursive DEs are terminated
57: at the finite level $m$
58: in the level-$m$ AMM (AMM$m$), yielding
59: $8(m+1)$-dimensional deterministic DEs.
60: When a single spike is applied, the oscillation may be induced
61: when parameters of coupling strength, delay, noise intensity
62: and/or ensemble size are appropriate.
63: Effects of these parameters
64: on the emergence of the oscillation
65: and on the synchronization in FN neuron ensembles have been studied.
66: The synchronization shows the {\it fluctuation-induced} enhancement
67: at the transition between non-oscillating and oscillating states.
68: Results calculated by AMM5
69: are in fairly good agreement with those obtained
70: by direct simulations.
71: %and to be much better than those by the small-delay approximation
72: %which is valid only for very small delays.
73:
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \noindent
77: \vspace{0.5cm}
78: \pacs{PACS numbers 87.10.+e 84.35.+i 05.45.-a 07.05.Mh }
79: %
80: %\narrowtext
81: \section{INTRODUCTION}
82:
83: %\begin{center}
84: %{\bf I. INTRODUCTION}
85: %\end{center}
86:
87: There have been many studies on effects
88: of noises in dynamical systems with delays.
89: Complex behavior due to noise and delay is found in many
90: systems such as biological systems, signal transmissions,
91: electrical circuits and lasers.
92: Systems with both noises and delay are commonly described by
93: stochastic delay differential equations (SDDEs).
94: In recent years, linear SDDEs of Langevin equation
95: are beginning to gain much attention
96: \cite{Kuchler92}-\cite{Frank03}.
97: The parameter range for the stationary solutions of
98: the Langevin equation has been examined
99: with the use of the step by step method \cite{Kuchler92},
100: the moment mothod \cite{Mackey95}
101: and the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) method \cite{Duil99}\cite{Ohira00}.
102:
103: When we pay our attention to living brains, various kinds of
104: noises are reported to be ubiquitous.
105: A study on noise effects has been one of major recent
106: topics in neuronal systems.
107: It has been shown that the response of neurons
108: may be improved by background noises.
109: The typical example is the stochastic resonance in which
110: weak noises enhance the transmission of signals
111: with the subthreshold level.
112: The transmission delay is inherent because the speed of
113: spikes propagating through axons is finite.
114: Conduction velocity ranges from 20 to 60 m/s,
115: leading to non-negligible transmission times from
116: milliseconds to hundreds milliseconds.
117: Although an importance of effects of delay
118: has been not so recognized as that of noises,
119: there is an increasing interest in
120: the complex behavior of time delays,
121: whose effects have been investigated by using
122: integrate-and-fire (IF) \cite{Marcus89}-\cite{Ernst98},
123: FitzHugh-Nagumo (FN) \cite{Frank01b}-\cite{Campbell01},
124: Hindmarsh-Rose (HR) \cite{Rosenblum04},
125: and Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) models \cite{Foss96}
126: \cite{Pakdaman96}\cite{Park96}\cite{Hasegawa00b}.
127: Exposed behaviors due to time delays are the multistability and
128: bifurcation leading to chaos.
129:
130: There are two difficulties in studying combined effects of
131: noise and delay in brains.
132: One is that the system is usually described
133: by {\it nonlinear} SDDEs,
134: which are generally more difficult than
135: linear SDDEs.
136: Dynamics of individual neurons includes a variety of
137: voltage dependent ionic channels which can be described by
138: nonlinear DEs of Hodgkin-Huxley-type models,
139: or of reduced neuron models such as IF, FN and HR models.
140: The other difficulty is that a small cluster of cortex
141: consists of thousands of similar neurons.
142: %In order to make our discussion concrete, let us consider
143: %an ensemble including $N$-unit neurons, each of which is
144: %described by $K$-dimensional DEs: $K=1,2$ and 4 for
145: %IF, FN and HH models, respectively.
146: For a study of dynamics of noisy neuron
147: ensembles with time-delayed couplings,
148: we have to solve high-dimensional nonlinear SDDEs, which
149: have been studied by
150: direct simulations (DSs) \cite{Kim97} \cite{Borisyuk02}
151: and by analytical methods like FPE \cite{Zorzano03}.
152: %These studies have shown that noise and delay yield intrigue effects
153: %such as emergent synchronous oscillations.
154: Simulations for large-scale neuron ensembles have been made
155: mostly by using IF, FN, HR and phase models.
156: Since the time to simulate networks by conventional methods
157: grows as $N^2$ with $N$, the size of the ensemble,
158: it is rather difficult to simulate realistic neuron clusters.
159: Although FPE is a powerful method in dealing with the stochastic DE,
160: a simple FPE application to SDDE fails because of
161: its non-Markovian property \cite{Duil99}\cite{Frank01}.
162:
163: In a preceding paper \cite{Hasegawa04} (which is referred to as I hereafter),
164: the present author has developed an augmented moment method (AMM)
165: for SDDE, employing a semi-analytical dynamical
166: mean-field approximation (DMA) theory \cite{Hasegawa03}\cite{Hasegawa03b}.
167: In I, AMM is applied to an ensemble described by
168: the delay Langevin model, transforming the original
169: $N$-dimensional SDDEs to infinite-dimensional DEs which are
170: terminated at finite level $m$ in the level-$m$ AMM (AMM$m$).
171: Model calculations in I with changing the level $m$ have shown
172: that calculated results converge at a fairly small $m$.
173: Actually results obtained by AMM6 are
174: in good agreement with those by DSs
175: for linear and nonlinear Langevin ensembles.
176: It has been demonstrated in I that AMM may be a useful tool
177: in discussing dynamics and synchronization of ensembles
178: described by SDDEs.
179:
180: It is the purpose of the present paper to apply AMM to
181: FN neuron ensembles with time-delayed couplings.
182: In the next Sec. II, we apply our AMM theory
183: to nonlinear SDDEs of $N$-unit FN neuron ensembles,
184: in order to get the infinite-dimensional deterministic DEs for
185: the correlation functions of local and global variables.
186: Infinite-dimensional recursive DEs are terminated at
187: the finite level $m$ in AMM$m$.
188: In Sec. III we report model calculations,
189: showing that results of our AMM are
190: in good agreement with those of DSs.
191: Section IV is devoted to
192: conclusions and discussions.
193:
194:
195: %\newpage
196: \section{FN Neuron ensemble}
197:
198: \subsection{Adopted model and method}
199:
200: Dynamics of a neuron ensemble consisting of $N$-unit
201: FN neurons ($N \geq 2$),
202: is described by the $2N$-dimensional
203: nonlinear SDDEs given by
204: %
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: \frac{dx_{1i}(t)}{dt} &=& F[x_{1i}(t)]- c x_{2i}(t)
207: + \left( \frac{1}{N-1}\right)
208: \;\sum_{j (\neq i)} w_{ij}\: G(x_{1j}(t-\tau_{ij}))
209: + \xi_i(t)+I^{(e)}(t), \\
210: \frac{d x_{2i}(t)}{dt} &=& b x_{1i}(t) - d x_{2i}(t)+e,
211: \hspace{3cm}\mbox{($i=1-N$)}
212: \end{eqnarray}
213: where $F[x(t)]=k\: x(t)\: [x(t)-h]\: [1-x(t)]$,
214: $k=0.5$, $h=0.1$, $b=0.015$, $c=1.0$, $d=0.003$ and $e=0$
215: \cite{Hasegawa03}\cite{Rod96}, and
216: $x_{1i}$ and $x_{2i}$ denote the fast (voltage)
217: and slow (recovery) variables, respectively.
218: The third term in Eq. (1) stands for interactions
219: with the uniform couplings of $w_{ij}=w$ and
220: delay times of $\tau_{ij}=\tau$,
221: and the sigmond function $G(x)$ given by
222: $G(x)=1/(1+exp[-(x-\theta)/\alpha])$,
223: $\theta$ and $\alpha$ denoting the threshold and
224: the width, respectively \cite{Note6}.
225: The all-to-all couplings have been widely employed in theoretical studies.
226: The assumed constant delay may be justified in certain neural
227: networks \cite{Salami03}.
228: The fourth term of Eq. (1), $\xi_{i}(t)$, denotes the
229: Gaussian white noise given by
230: $<\xi_i(t)>=0$ and
231: $<\xi_i(t)\:\xi_j(t')> = \beta^2 \delta_{ij} \delta(t-t')$
232: where $\beta$ denotes the magnitudes of independent noises
233: and the bracket $<\cdot>$ the stochastic average \cite{Note2}.
234: The last term in Eq. (1), $I^{(e)}(t)$, denotes an external input whose
235: explicit form will be shown later [Eq. (31)].
236:
237: We apply our AMM developed in I to FN neuron ensemble
238: given by Eqs. (1) and (2),
239: defining global variables for the ensemble given by
240: \begin{eqnarray}
241: X_{\kappa}(t)&=&\frac{1}{N}\;\sum_{i} \;x_{\kappa i}(t),
242: \hspace{1cm}\mbox{$\kappa=1,\:2$},
243: \end{eqnarray}
244: and their averages by
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: \mu_{\kappa}(t)&=&<X_{\kappa}(t)>.
247: \end{eqnarray}
248: We define the correlation functions
249: between local variables, given by
250: \begin{eqnarray}
251: \gamma_{\kappa,\lambda}(t,t')&=&\frac{1}{N} \sum_i
252: < \delta x_{\kappa i}(t)\:\delta x_{\lambda i}(t')>,
253: \hspace{1cm}\mbox{$\kappa, \:\lambda=1,\:2 $}
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: where $\delta x_{\kappa i}(t)= x_{\kappa i}(t)-\mu_{\kappa}(t)$.
256: Similarly we define the correlation function
257: between global variables, given by
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: \rho_{\kappa,\lambda}(t,t')
260: &=&< \delta X_{\kappa}(t)\;\delta X_{\lambda}(t') >, \\
261: &=&\frac{1}{N^2} \sum_i \sum_j
262: < \delta x_{\kappa j}(t)\:\delta x_{\lambda i}(t')>,
263: \end{eqnarray}
264: where $\delta X_{\kappa}(t)
265: = X_{\kappa}(t)-\mu_{\kappa}(t)$.
266: Conventional variances and covariances are given by Eqs. (5)-(7)
267: with $t=t'$, for which
268: the symmetry relations:
269: $\gamma_{1,2}(t,t)=\gamma_{2,1}(t,t)$ and
270: $\rho_{1,2}(t,t)=\rho_{2,1}(t,t)$, are hold.
271: It is noted that $\gamma_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t)$ ($\kappa, \;\lambda=1,\;2$)
272: expresses the spatial average of fluctuations
273: in local variables of $x_{\kappa i}$
274: while $\rho_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t)$
275: denotes fluctuations in global variables of $X_{\kappa}$.
276:
277: After our previous studies
278: \cite{Hasegawa04,Hasegawa03,Hasegawa03b},
279: we have assumed that the noise intensity $\beta$ is weak
280: and that the distribution of state variables takes the Gaussian form
281: concentrated near the means of ($\mu_1,\:\mu_2$).
282: The second assumption is justified from numerical calculations
283: for single FN \cite{Tuckwell98,Tanabe01}
284: and HH neurons \cite{Tanabe99,Tanabe01a}.
285: We will obtain infinite-order equations of motions for means,
286: variance and covariances defined by Eqs. (5)-(7).
287: They will be terminated at the level $m$ in AMM$m$.
288: Readers who are not interested in mathematical details, may skip
289: to Sec. IIC.
290:
291: \subsection{Equations of motions}
292:
293: After some manipulations, we get DEs for
294: $\mu_{\kappa}(t)$, $\gamma_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t)$
295: and $\rho_{\kappa,\nu }(t,t)$ ($\kappa, \nu=1,2$) given by
296: (for details see appendix A)
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: \frac{d \mu_1(t)}{d t}&=&f_0(t) + f_2(t) \gamma_{1,1}(t,t) -c \mu_2(t)
299: + w\; u_0(t-\tau)+I^{(e)}(t), \\
300: %
301: \frac{d \mu_2(t)}{d t}&=& b \mu_1(t) - d \mu_2(t) +e, \\
302: %
303: \frac{d \gamma_{1,1}(t,t)}{d t}&=& 2 [ a(t)
304: \gamma_{1,1}(t,t)- c \gamma_{1,2}(t,t) ]
305: + 2w u_1(t-\tau) \:\zeta_{1,1}(t,t-\tau)
306: +\beta^2, \\
307: %
308: \frac{d \gamma_{2,2}(t,t)}{d t}
309: &=& 2 [ b \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)- d \gamma_{2,2}(t,t) ], \\
310: %
311: \frac{d \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)}{d t}&=& b \gamma_{1,1}(t,t)
312: + [a(t)-d] \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)
313: - c \gamma_{2,2}(t,t)
314: + w u_1(t-\tau) \:\zeta_{2,1}(t,t-\tau), \\
315: %
316: \frac{d \rho_{1,1}(t,t)}{d t}&=&
317: 2 [ a(t) \rho_{1,1}(t,t) - c \rho_{1,2}(t,t) ]
318: +2 w u_1(t-\tau) \rho_{1,1}(t,t-\tau)
319: + \frac{\beta^2}{N}, \\
320: %
321: \frac{d \rho_{2,2}(t,t)}{d t}&=& 2 [b \rho_{1,2}(t,t)- d \rho_{2,2}(t,t)], \\
322: %
323: \frac{d \rho_{1,2}(t,t)}{d t}&=& b \rho_{1,1}(t,t)
324: + [a(t)-d] \rho_{1,2}(t,t)
325: - c \rho_{2,2}(t,t)
326: + w u_1(t-\tau) \rho_{2,1}(t,t-\tau),
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: with
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: a(t)&=& f_1(t)+3 f_3(t) \gamma_{1,1}(t,t), \\
331: u_0(t)&=&g_0(t)+g_2(t) \gamma_{1,1}(t,t),\\
332: u_1(t)&=&g_1(t)+3 g_3(t) \gamma_{1,1}(t,t),\\
333: \zeta_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t')
334: &=&\left( \frac{1}{N-1} \right)
335: [N \rho_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t')-\gamma_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t')],
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: where $f_{\ell}(t)=(1/\ell \:!) F^{(\ell)}(\mu_1(t))$ and
338: $g_{\ell}(t)=(1/\ell \:!) G^{(\ell)}(\mu_1(t))$.
339: Equations (8)-(15) include the higher-order terms of
340: $\gamma_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t-\tau)$ and
341: $\rho_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t-\tau)$, whose
342: equations of motions are given by ($m \ge 1$)
343: \begin{eqnarray}
344: \frac{d \gamma_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}&=&
345: [a(t) + a(t-m\tau)]
346: \gamma_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)
347: - c [\gamma_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau) + \gamma_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)]\nonumber \\
348: &+& w[ u_1(t-\tau)\:\zeta_{1,1}(t-\tau,t-m\tau) \nonumber \\
349: &+& u_1(t-(m+1)\tau)\:\zeta_{1,1}(t,t-(m+1)\tau) ]+\beta^2\:\Delta(m \tau), \\
350: %
351: \frac{d \gamma_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}
352: &=& b [\gamma_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau)+ \gamma_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)]
353: - 2d \gamma_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau), \\
354: %
355: \frac{d \gamma_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}&=& b \gamma_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)
356: + [a(t)-d] \gamma_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau)
357: - c \gamma_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau) \nonumber \\
358: &+& w u_1(t-\tau)\:\zeta_{1,2}(t-\tau,t-m\tau), \\
359: %
360: \frac{d \gamma_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}&=& b \gamma_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)
361: + [a(t-m\tau)-d] \gamma_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)
362: - c \gamma_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau) \nonumber \\
363: &+& w u_1(t-(m+1)\tau)\:\zeta_{2,1}(t,t-(m+1)\tau), \\
364: %
365: \frac{d \rho_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}&=&
366: [a(t) + a(t-m\tau)]
367: \rho_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)
368: - c [\rho_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau)+\rho_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)] \nonumber \\
369: &+& w [u_1(t-\tau)\rho_{1,1}(t-\tau,t-m\tau) \nonumber \\
370: &+& u_1(t-(m+1)\tau) \rho_{1,1}(t,t-(m+1)\tau) ]
371: +\left( \frac{\beta^2}{N} \right) \:\Delta(m\tau), \\
372: %
373: \frac{d \rho_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}
374: &=& b [\rho_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau)+ \rho_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)]
375: - 2 d \rho_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau), \\
376: %
377: \frac{d \rho_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}&=& b \rho_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)
378: + [a(t)-d] \rho_{1,2}(t,t-m\tau)
379: - c \rho_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau) \nonumber \\
380: &+& w u_1(t-\tau) \rho_{1,2}(t-\tau,t-m\tau), \\
381: %
382: \frac{d \rho_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)}{d t}&=& b \rho_{1,1}(t,t-m\tau)
383: + [a(t-m\tau)-d] \rho_{2,1}(t,t-m\tau)
384: - c \rho_{2,2}(t,t-m\tau) \nonumber \\
385: &+& w u_1(t-(m+1)\tau) \rho_{2,1}(t,t-(m+1)\tau),
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: where $\Delta(x)=1$ for $x=0$ and 0 otherwise.
388:
389: \subsection{Summary of our method}
390:
391: The original two-dimensional SDDE given by Eqs. (1) and (2)
392: are transformed to infinite-dimensional
393: deterministic DDEs given by Eqs. (8)-(15) and (20)-(27),
394: which are due to non-Markovian property of SDDE.
395: It is, however, impossible to simultaneously
396: solve these infinite-order recursive equations.
397: We will adopt the level-$m$ AMM (AMM$m$) in which
398: the recursive DEs are terminated at the finite level $m$, as
399: \begin{eqnarray}
400: \gamma_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t-(m+1)\tau)
401: &=&\gamma_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t-m\tau), \\
402: \rho_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t-(m+1)\tau)
403: &=& \rho_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t-(m+1)\tau), \\
404: g_1(t-(m+1)\tau) &=& g_1(t-m\tau),
405: \end{eqnarray}
406: leading to $8(m+1)$-dimensional DEs.
407: In the following Sec. III, we will examine
408: AMM$m$, performing calculations
409: with changing $m$, in order to show that AMM5
410: may yield results in fairy good agreement
411: with those of DS [Fig. 5(b)].
412: In the limit of $\tau=0$,
413: Eqs. (20)-(27) reduce to Eqs. (10)-(15),
414: then Eqs. (8)-(15) agree with Eqs. (20)-(27)
415: in Ref. \cite{Hasegawa03} for FN neurons ensembles
416: without delays \cite{Note6}.
417:
418:
419: Model calculations will be reported in
420: the following Sec. III.
421: DSs have been performed for
422: $2 N$ DEs given by Eqs. (1) and (2)
423: by using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with
424: a time step of 0.01.
425: Initial values of variables at $t \in (-\tau, 0]$ are
426: $x_i(t)=y_i(t)=0$ for $i=1$ to $N$.
427: DS results
428: are the average of 100 trials otherwise noticed.
429: AMM calculations have been performed for
430: Eqs. (8)-(30) by using also
431: the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with
432: a time step of 0.01.
433: Initial values are
434: $\mu_1(t)=\mu_2(t)=0$ at $t \in [-\tau, 0]$, and
435: $\gamma_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t')=\rho_{\kappa,\nu}(t,t')=0$
436: $t \in [-\tau, 0]$ or $t' \in [-\tau, 0]$ ($t \geq t'$).
437: All calculated quantities are dimensionless.
438:
439: %\newpage
440: \section{Model calculations}
441: %\subsection{Time courses of variables}
442:
443: \subsection{Effects of coupling ($w$) and delay ($\tau$)}
444:
445: In this study, we pay our attention to
446: the response of the FN neuron ensembles
447: to a single spike input of $I^{(e)}(t)$
448: %applied to all neurons in the ensemble,
449: given by \cite{Hasegawa03}
450: \begin{equation}
451: I^{(e)}(t)
452: =A \;\Theta(t-t_{in})\; \Theta(t_{in}+T_w-t),
453: \end{equation}
454: where $\Theta(x)=1$ for $x>0$ and 0 otherwise,
455: $A$ stands for the magnitude, $t_{in}$ the input time and
456: $T_w$ the spike width.
457: We have adopted the same parameters of
458: %$\theta=0.5$, $\alpha=0.1$, $\tau_r=10$,
459: $A=0.10$, $t_{in}=100$ and $T_w=10$ as in Ref. \cite{Hasegawa03}.
460: Parameter values of $w$, $\tau$, $\beta$
461: and $N$ will be explained shortly.
462:
463: When an input spike given by Eq. (31) is applied,
464: the oscillation may be triggered
465: when model parameters are appropriate.
466: The $w$-$\tau$ phase diagram showing the oscillating (OSC)
467: and non-oscillating (NOSC) states is depicted in Fig. 1, which is
468: calculated for $\beta=0$ and $N=10$.
469: In the case of $\beta=0.01$, for example,
470: the OSC region is slightly shrunk compared to that for $\beta=0$,
471: as will be shortly discussed [Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)].
472: The $w$-$\tau$ phase is
473: separated by two boundaries in positive- and negative-$w$ regions.
474: Circles in Fig. 1 express pairs
475: of $w$ and $\tau$ adopted for calculations
476: to be shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
477: Along the horizontal, dashed line in Fig. 1,
478: the $w$ value is continuously changed in calculations to be shown
479: in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b).
480:
481: In order to monitor the emergence of the oscillation,
482: we calculate the quantity:
483: \begin{equation}
484: \sigma_o=\overline{O(t)}
485: =\frac{1}{t_2-t_1} \int_{t_1}^{t_2}\: dt \;O(t),
486: \end{equation}
487: with
488: \begin{eqnarray}
489: O(t)&=& \frac{1}{N}
490: \sum_i [<x_i(t)^2>-<x_i(t)>^2], \\
491: &=& \mu(t)^2-\mu(t)^2+\gamma_{1,1}(t),
492: \end{eqnarray}
493: which becomes finite in the oscillation state but
494: vanishes in the non-oscillating state,
495: the overline denoting the temporal average
496: between $t_1$ (=2000) and $t_2$ (=4000).
497:
498: The synchrony within ensembles is measured by
499: \cite{Hasegawa04}\cite{Hasegawa03}
500: \begin{equation}
501: \sigma_s = \overline{S(t)},
502: \end{equation}
503: with
504: \begin{eqnarray}
505: S(t)&=& \left( \frac{N\rho_{1,1}(t,t)/\gamma_{1,1}(t,t)-1}{N-1} \right),
506: \end{eqnarray}
507: which is 0 and 1 for completely asynchronous and synchronous states,
508: respetively.
509:
510: We have calculated
511: time courses of $\mu_1(t)$, $\gamma_{1,1}(t,t)$, $\rho_{1,1}(t,t)$
512: and $S(t)$,
513: whose results are depicted in Figs. 2(a)-2(l),
514: solid and dashed curves denoting results of AMM and
515: DS, respectively.
516:
517: For $\tau=0$, an output spike of $\mu_1(t)$ fires
518: after an applied input which is plotted
519: at the bottom of Fig. 2(a) [and also of 2(e) and 2(i)].
520: It is noted that state variables are randomized when an input
521: spike is applied at $t=100$ because independent noises have been added
522: since $t=0$.
523: Figures 2(b) and 2(c) show $\gamma_{1,1}$ and $\rho_{1,1}$
524: for $\tau=0$, respectively.
525: The synchronization ratio $S(t)$ for $\tau=0$ shown
526: in Fig. 2(d) has an appreciable magnitude:
527: its maximum values calculated in AMM are 0.038 and 0.077 at $t=107$
528: and 123, respectively.
529: Figure 2(e) shows that
530: when a delay of $\tau=20$ is introduced,
531: an input signal leads to a spike output with
532: an additional, small peak in $\mu_1$ at $t= 133$.
533: Figures 2(f) and 2(g) show that
534: although a peak of $\gamma_{1,1}$ for $\tau=20$ becomes
535: larger than that for $\tau=0$,
536: a peak of $\rho_{1,1}$ is decreased by an introduced delay.
537: Maximum values of $S(t)$ calculated by AMM
538: are 0.154 and 0.130 at $t=126$ and 140, respectively, for $\tau=20$.
539: We note from Fig. 2(i) that
540: for a larger $\tau=60$, an input spike triggers
541: an autonomous oscillation with a period of about 65.
542: Peaks in $\gamma_{1,1}$, $\rho_{1,1}$ and $S$ are progressively
543: increased with increasing $t$ as shown in Figs. 2(j), 2(k) and 2(l):
544: peaks of $\gamma_{1,1}$, $\rho_{1,1}$ and $S$
545: saturate at $t \simg 1200$ with the values of 0.00253, 0.00014
546: and 0.098, respectively, in AMM calculations.
547: We note in Figs. 2(a)-2(l) that results of $\mu_1$ obtained by AMM and DS
548: are indistinguishable, and
549: that AMM results of $\gamma_{1,1}$, $\rho_{1,1}$ and $S$ are
550: in fairly good agreement with those of DSs.
551:
552: Figure 1 shows that
553: although the obtained NOSC-OSC phase is nearly symmetric
554: with respect to the $w=0$ axis, it is not in the strict sense.
555: Actually the property of the oscillation for inhibitory couplings ($w < 0$) is
556: different from that for excitatory couplings ($w > 0$).
557: Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show autonomous oscillations for $w=0.1$ and $w=-0.1$,
558: respectively, with $\tau=60$, $\beta=0.01$ and $N=10$.
559: The period of the oscillation $T$ is given by
560: $T=\tau+\tau_i$ where $\tau_i$ denotes the intrinsic delay
561: for firings.
562: For inhibitory feedback with negative $w$,
563: FN neurons fire with the rebound process,
564: which requires a larger $\tau_i$ for firing than for excitatory
565: feedback with positive $w$.
566: Then the period of $T = 86$ for autonomous oscillation
567: with the negative $w$
568: becomes larger than that of $T = 65$ with the positive $w$.
569:
570: By changing the $w$ value along the horizontal, dashed line in Fig. 1,
571: we have calculated the $w$ dependence of $\sigma_o$
572: and $\sigma_s$, whose results
573: are plotted in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), respectively,
574: for $\beta=0.0001$ and 0.01.
575: The oscillation emerges for $w \simg 0.058$ or $w \siml -0.063$
576: with $\beta=0.0001$, while with $\beta=0.01$ it occurs
577: for $w \simg 0.060$ or $w \siml -0.070$.
578: The transition from NOSC to OSC states
579: is of the first order because
580: $\sigma_o$ is abruptly increased
581: at the critical coupling of $w=w_c$, where $\sigma_s$ has a narrow peak.
582: In contrast, the relevant NOSC-OSC transition
583: in the nonlinear Langevin model is of the second order \cite{Hasegawa04}.
584:
585: We have investigated, in more detail,
586: the $w$ dependence of $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$ near the transition region
587: of $0.05 \leq w \leq 0.07$,
588: which is sandwiched by vertical, dashed lines in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b),
589: results for $\beta=0.0001$ and $\beta=0.01$ being plotted
590: in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), respectively.
591: Figure 5(a) shows
592: that the critical $w$ value for the NOSC-OSC transition
593: is $w_c \simeq 0.0579$ for $\beta=0.0001$ both in DS and AMM5.
594: When we adopt AMM1, we get the result showing the
595: NOSC-OSC transition at $w \sim 0.6$, although we cannot get
596: solutions for $0.0586 < w < 0.060$.
597: With the use of AMM2,
598: we get the transition at $w \sim 0.058$,
599: though solutions are not obtainable
600: for $0.0580 < w < 0.0582$.
601: We have noted that AMM$m$ converges at the level $m = 3$,
602: above which calculated results are almost identical.
603: Figure 5(b) shows that the critical value of $w_c$
604: for $\beta=0.01$ is 0.0600 in DS and 0.0607 in AMM5.
605: For $m=1$, 2 and 3, the NOSC-OSC transition occurs
606: at $w =$ 0.0644, 0.0609 and 0.0807,
607: respectively: $w_c$ for $m=3$ approaches that for $m=5$
608: (in what follows results of AMM5 will be reported).
609: It is interesting to note in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) that
610: the synchrony $\sigma_s$ shows
611: {\it fluctuation-induced} enhancement
612: at the NOSC-OSC transition. This is due to an increase in the ratio of
613: $\rho_{1,1}(t,t)/\gamma_{1,1}(t,t)$ in Eq. (36) although
614: both $\rho_{1,1}(t,t)$ and $\gamma_{1,1}(t,t)$ are increased
615: at the NOSC-OSC transition.
616: Similar phenomenon has been reported
617: in the nonlinear Langevin model \cite{Hasegawa04} and
618: in heterogeneous systems
619: in which the oscillation emerges when the degree of the heterogeneity
620: exceeds the critical value \cite{Cartwright00}\cite{Boschi01}.
621:
622: \subsection{Effects of noise ($\beta$)}
623:
624: Comparing Fig. 5(b) with Fig. 5(a),
625: we note that when the noise intensity
626: is increased form $\beta=0.0001$ to $\beta=0.01$,
627: the critical $w_c$ value for the NOSC-OSC transition is increased:
628: $w_c$=0.0579 (0.0579) for $\beta=0.001$ and
629: $w_c$=0.0600 (0.0607) for $\beta=0.01$ in DS (AMM).
630: Figure 6(a) shows the $\beta$ dependence of
631: $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$ for $\tau=60$, $w=0.06$ and $N=10$.
632: $\sigma_o$ is rapidly decreased at $\beta \sim \beta_c$ where
633: $\sigma_s$ has a broad peak: $\beta_c$ is about 0.01 in DS
634: while it is about 0.0075 in AMM.
635: Figure 6(b) shows that the similar $\beta$ dependence of
636: $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$
637: is obtained also for a larger $w=0.062$, for which
638: $\beta_c \sim 0.015$ in DS
639: and $\beta_c \sim 0.014$ in AMM.
640: %A comparison between Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) shows
641: %that the NOSC-OSC transition is broaden by noises.
642: A suppression of the oscillation by noises is realized
643: in the Langevin model \cite{Hasegawa04} and in
644: some calculations for systems with heterogeneity \cite{Boschi01},
645: although the noise-induced oscillation is
646: reported in Refs. \cite{Zorzano03}\cite{Hu00}\cite{Vries01}.
647: In particular, Zorzano and V\'{a}zquez \cite{Zorzano03} (ZV)
648: showed the noise-induced
649: oscillation in FN neuron ensembles ($N=\infty$) with time delays
650: by using FPE method.
651: The difference between ZV's results and ours
652: may be due to the difference in the adopted FN model
653: and/or ensemble size.
654: In order to get some insight on this issue,
655: we have performed AMM calculations for our FN model
656: with larger ensemble sizes of $N=100$ and 1000,
657: and obtained again a suppression of the oscillation
658: by noises \cite{Note3}.
659: It is not clear for us how ZV took into account
660: the non-Markovian property of SDDE
661: within their FPE method \cite{Duil99}\cite{Frank01}.
662:
663: \subsection{Effects of size ($N$)}
664:
665: The $N$ dependence of $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$
666: for $\beta=0.01$, $w=0.06$ and $\tau=60$ is shown in Fig. 7 where
667: open circles (squares) express
668: $\sigma_o$ ($\sigma_s$) in DS, and
669: where thin (bold) solid curves denote $\sigma_o$ ($\sigma_s$) in AMM.
670: It is shown that with increasing the size of ensemble,
671: $\sigma_o$ is gradually increased at $N \sim N_c$ where
672: $\sigma_s$ has a broad peak,
673: the critical dimension being $N_c \sim $10 in DS
674: and $N_c \sim $ 100 in AMM.
675: Results of our AMM calculations
676: are qualitatively similar to those of DS
677: although calculated $N_c$ values are different
678: between the two methods.
679: %Both DS and AMM calculations
680: %show that the large ensemble size
681: %is favorable for the emergence of the oscillation.
682:
683: %\newpage
684: \section{Conclusions and Discussions}
685:
686: In Sec. II, we have obtained the infinite-dimensional
687: ordinary differential equations.
688: It is, however, possible to get expressions
689: given by partial differential equations (PDEs) if we define
690: the correlation functions:
691: \begin{eqnarray}
692: C_{\kappa,\lambda}(t,z)&=&
693: \frac{1}{N} \sum_i <\delta x_{\kappa i}(t)
694: \:\delta x_{\lambda i}(t-z)>,\\
695: D_{\kappa,\lambda}(t,z)&=&
696: <\delta X_{\kappa}(t) \:\delta X_{\lambda}(t-z)>,
697: \end{eqnarray}
698: introducing a new variable $z$ [see Eqs. (5) and (6)].
699: For example, PDEs for $C_{1,1}(t,z)$ are given by
700: \begin{eqnarray}
701: \frac{\partial C_{1,1}(t,0)}{\partial t}
702: &=& 2[a C_{1,1}(t,0) - c C_{1,2}(t,0)]
703: + 2 w u_1(t-\tau) E_{1,1}(t,\tau) + \beta^2, \\
704: \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t}
705: +\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \right) C_{1,1}(t,z)
706: &=&a C_{1,1}(t,z)- c C_{1,2}(t,z)\nonumber \\
707: &+& w u_1(t-\tau) E_{1,1}(t-\tau,z-\tau),
708: \hspace{2cm}\mbox{for $z > 0$}
709: \end{eqnarray}
710: where $E_{1,1}(t,z)=[N D_{1,1}(t,z)-C_{1,1}(t,z)]/[N-1]$.
711: It is noted that Eqs. (39) and (40) correspond
712: to Eqs. (10) and (20), respectively.
713: Then we have to solve PDEs including $\mu_{\kappa}(t)$,
714: $C_{\kappa,\lambda}(t,z)$
715: and $D_{\kappa,\lambda}(t,z)$
716: with a proper boundary condition in the $(t, z)$ space.
717: A similar PDE approach has been adopted in Ref. \cite{Frank03}
718: for an analysis of the stationary solution of the
719: linear Langevin equation with delays.
720: In an earlier stage of this study, we pursued the
721: PDE approach. We realized, however,
722: from the point of computer programming that
723: the use of the ordinary DEs given in AMM
724: is more tractable than that of PDEs.
725:
726: Our calculations have shown that
727: FN neuron ensembles with delays exhibit the multistability
728: when model parameters such as
729: $w$, $\tau$, $\beta$ and $N$ are varied.
730: The multistability is the common property of the
731: system with time delay.
732: Actually the nonlinear Langevin ensembles discussed
733: in I also show the multistability:
734: the $w-\tau$ phase diagram of FN ensembles
735: shown in Fig. 1 is similar
736: to that of the Langevin ensembles shown in Fig. 6 of I.
737: In either case,
738: {\it fluctuation-induced} synchronization is realized
739: near the transition between OSC and NOSC states.
740: These results imply that
741: the oscillating, highly synchronous
742: state may be realized in ensembles for smaller couplings
743: with a proper delay
744: than with no delays.
745: This is consistent with the recent result of
746: Ref. \cite{Dhamala04}, where the importance
747: of delays is stressed for the long-range synchronization with
748: low coupling strength.
749:
750: In summary, we have discussed dynamics of FN neuron ensembles
751: with delays by using a semi-analytical method
752: developed in I.
753: Our method has a limitation of weak noises but it is
754: free from the magnitude of delay times.
755: This is complementary to the
756: small-delay approximation \cite{Duil99}, whose application
757: to FN neuron ensembles with delays is discussed in appendix C.
758: For FN ensembles to show the oscillation, we have to adopt
759: an appreciable magnitude of delay ($\tau \simg 20$), for which
760: SDA method cannot be employed.
761: In this study we have discussed only the case of
762: a single spike input.
763: Our method may be, however, applicable to arbitrary inputs
764: such as periodic spike trains and Poisson spikes,
765: as was made for HH neuron ensembles (without delays)
766: \cite{Hasegawa03b}.
767: Although results calculated by our method are in fairly good agreement
768: with those obtained by DC,
769: the quantitative analytical theory is still lacking.
770: In this study, we have assumed regular
771: couplings ($w_{ij}=w$)
772: and uniform time delays ($\tau_{ij}=\tau$). In real systems, however,
773: couplings are neither regular nor random, and
774: time delays are nonuniform with a variety of dendrite radius
775: and length.
776: It is interesting to include these properties by extending
777: our approach, which is in progress and will be reported
778: in a future paper.
779:
780: \section*{Acknowledgments}
781: %The author would like to express his sincere thanks to
782: %Professor Hideo Nitta for critical reading of the manuscript.
783: This work is partly supported by
784: a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese
785: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
786:
787: %\newpage
788:
789: \appendix
790:
791: \section{Derivation of Eqs. (8)-(15)}
792:
793: We express Eqs. (1) and (2) in a Taylor expansion
794: of $\delta x_i \:(=\delta x_{1i})$
795: and $\delta y_i \:(=\delta x_{2i})$
796: up to the third-order terms to get
797: \begin{eqnarray}
798: \frac{d \delta x_i(t)}{d t}
799: &=& f_1(t) \delta x_i(t)+f_2 [\delta x_i(t)^2-\gamma_{1,1}(t,t)]
800: + f_3(t) \delta x_i(t)^3 - c \delta y_i(t) \nonumber \\
801: &+& \xi_i(t) + \delta I_i^{(c)}(t-\tau), \\
802: \frac{d \delta y_i(t)}{d t}&=& b \delta x_i(t) - d \delta y_i(t),
803: \end{eqnarray}
804: with
805: \begin{eqnarray}
806: \delta I_i^{(c)}(t)
807: &=& w \left( \frac{g_1(t)}{N-1} \sum_{j(\neq i)} \delta x_j(t)
808: + \frac{g_2(t)}{N-1} \sum_{j(\neq i)} [\delta x_j(t)^2 -\gamma_{1,1}]
809: + \frac{g_3(t)}{N-1} \sum_{j(\neq i)} \delta x_j(t)^3 \right),
810: \end{eqnarray}
811: where
812: $f_{\ell}(t)=(1/\ell \:!) F^{(\ell)}(\mu_1(t))$ and
813: $g_{\ell}(t)=(1/\ell \:!) G^{(\ell)}(\mu_1(t))$.
814: Averages of Eqs. (A1) and (A2) with Eqs. (3) and (4) yield
815: DEs for means of $d \mu_1/d t$ and $d \mu_2/d t$ [Eq. (8)].
816: DEs for variances and covariances may be obtained
817: by using the equations of motions of
818: $\delta x_i$ and $\delta y_i$.
819: For example, DE for $d \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)/d t$ is given by
820: \begin{equation}
821: \frac{d \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)}{d t} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_i
822: < \left(\frac{d \delta x_i(t)}{d t}\right) \;\delta y_i(t)
823: +\delta x_i(t) \;\left(\frac{d \delta y_i(t)}{d t}\right) >,
824: \end{equation}
825: which leads to Eq. (12).
826: DEs for other variances and covariances are similarly obtained.
827:
828:
829: %\newpage
830: \section{Derivation of Eqs. (20) and (27)}
831:
832: In the process of calculations of Eqs. (8)-(15), we get new
833: correlation functions given by
834: \begin{eqnarray}
835: S_{1}(t_1,t_2)&=&\frac{1}{N} \sum_i < \delta x_i(t_1)\;\xi_i(t_2) >, \\
836: S_{2}(t_1,t_2)&=&\frac{1}{N} \sum_i <\delta y_i(t_1) \;\xi_i(t_2)>,
837: \end{eqnarray}
838: where $\delta x_i=\delta x_{1i}$, $\delta y_i=\delta x_{2i}$,
839: $t_1=t$ and $t_2=t-m\tau$, or $t_1=t-m\tau$ and $t_2=t$.
840: We will evaluate them by using
841: DEs for $\delta x_i(t)$ and $\delta y_i(t)$,
842: which are linearized from Eqs. (A1)-(A3):
843: \begin{eqnarray}
844: \frac{d \delta x_i(t)}{d t}&=& a(t) \delta x_i(t) - c \delta y_i(t)
845: +\left( \frac{w}{N-1} \right)
846: \sum_{j (\neq i)} g_1(t-\tau) \delta x_j(t-\tau)
847: + \xi_i(t), \\
848: \frac{d \delta y_i(t)}{d t}&=& b \delta x_i(t) - d \delta y_i(t),
849: \end{eqnarray}
850: where $a(t)=f_1(t)+3 f_3(t) \gamma_{1,1}(t,t)$.
851: Neglecting the $t$ dependence in $a(t)$,
852: we get formal solutions of Eqs. (B3) and (B4)
853: given by
854: \begin{eqnarray}
855: \delta x_i(t)&=& \left( \frac{A+d}{A-B} \right)
856: \int^t ds
857: \;{\rm exp}^{(t-s) A}
858: [\left( \frac{w}{N-1} \right)
859: \sum_{j (\neq i)} g_1(s-\tau) \delta x_j(s-\tau)
860: + \xi_i(s)]
861: \nonumber \\
862: &-& \left( \frac{B+d}{A-B} \right)
863: \int^t ds
864: \;{\rm exp}^{(t-s) B}
865: [\left( \frac{w}{N-1} \right)
866: \sum_{j (\neq i)} g_1(s-\tau) \delta x_j(s-\tau)
867: + \xi_i(s)], \\
868: \delta y_i(t)&=& \left( \frac{b}{A-B} \right)
869: \int^t ds
870: \;{\rm exp}^{(t-s)A}
871: [\left( \frac{w}{N-1} \right)
872: \sum_{j (\neq i)} g_1(s-\tau) \delta x_j(s-\tau)
873: + \xi_i(s)]
874: \nonumber \\
875: &-&\left( \frac{b}{A-B} \right) \int^t ds
876: \;{\rm exp}^{(t-s)B} \;
877: [\left( \frac{w}{N-1} \right)
878: \sum_{j (\neq i)} g_1(s-\tau) \delta x_j(s-\tau)
879: + \xi_i(s)],
880: \end{eqnarray}
881: where $A$ and $B$ are roots of the equation given by
882: $z^2-(a-d)\:z-a\:d+b\:c=0$.
883: %given by
884: %\begin{eqnarray}
885: %A,B&=&\frac{1}{2} [a-d \pm \sqrt{D}]
886: %\hspace{4cm} \mbox{for $D \geq 0$} \\
887: %&=& \frac{1}{2}[a-d \pm i \sqrt{-D}]
888: %\equiv P \pm i Q,
889: %\hspace{0.5cm}\mbox{for $D < 0$}
890: %\end{eqnarray}
891: %$D$ being the discriminant: $D=(a+d)^2-4bc$.
892: By using the method of steps in Ref. \cite{Frank03},
893: we obtain the step by step functions, from which we get
894: \begin{eqnarray}
895: S_1(t,t-m\tau)= S_1(t-m\tau,t)&=&
896: \left( \frac{\beta^2}{2} \right) \Delta(m\tau), \\
897: S_2(t,t-m\tau)= S_2(t-m\tau,t)&=&0,
898: \end{eqnarray}
899: where $\Delta(x)=1$ for $x=0$ and 0 otherwise.
900: By using Eqs. (B7) and (B8), we get Eqs. (20)-(27).
901: The assumption of a neglect of the $t$ dependence in $a(t)$
902: may be justified, to some extent,
903: from results calculated by
904: our method which are in fairly good
905: agreement with those by DS as reported in Sec. III.
906:
907: \section{The Small-delay approximation}
908:
909: When the delay $\tau$ is very small, we may adopt
910: the small-delay approximation (SDA)
911: proposed in Ref.\cite{Duil99}.
912: With this approximation, we first transform the
913: SDDEs to stochastic non-delayed DEs,
914: and then to deterministic DEs with the use of DMA \cite{Hasegawa03}.
915: For a small $\tau$, we may expand $x_{1i}(t-\tau)$ in Eq. (1) as
916: \begin{equation}
917: x_{1i}(t-\tau) \simeq x_{1i}(t) - \tau \frac{d x_{1i}(t)}{d t},
918: \end{equation}
919: with which Eq. (1) becomes stochastic non-delayed DEs given by
920: \begin{eqnarray}
921: &&\frac{dx_{1i}(t)}{d t} + \left( \frac{w\tau}{N-1} \right)
922: \sum_{j(\neq i)} G'(x_{1j}(t)) \frac{dx_{1j}(t)}{d t} \nonumber \\
923: &&= F(x_{1i}) - c x_{i2} + \left( \frac{w}{N-1} \right)
924: \sum_{j(\neq i)} G(x_{1j}(t))
925: + \xi_i(t)+I^{(e)}.
926: \end{eqnarray}
927: When we apply DMA to $2N$-dimensional
928: stochastic DEs given by Eqs. (2) and (C2),
929: we get equations of motions for means, variances and
930: covariances, given by
931: \begin{eqnarray}
932: \frac{d \mu_1(t)}{d t}&=&[1-w\tau u_1]
933: [ f_0(t) + f_2(t) \gamma_{1,1}(t,t) -c \mu_2(t)
934: +w g_0(t)
935: +I^{(e)}(t) ], \\
936: %
937: \frac{d \mu_2(t)}{d t}&=& b \mu_1(t) - d \mu_2(t) +e, \\
938: %
939: \frac{d \gamma_{1,1}(t,t)}{d t}
940: &=& 2[a(t) \gamma_{1,1}(t,t)- c \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)
941: + w u_1(t) \zeta_{1,1}(t,t)] +\beta^2
942: \nonumber \\
943: &-& 2 w \tau u_1(t) \left[ a(t)\zeta_{1,1}(t,t)- c \zeta_{1,2}(t,t)
944: + \left(\frac{w u_1(t)}{N-1}\right)
945: (N \rho_{1,1}(t,t)-\zeta_{1,1}(t,t)) \right], \\
946: %
947: \frac{d \gamma_{2,2}(t,t)}{d t}
948: &=& 2 [ b \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)- d \gamma_{2,2}(t,t) ], \\
949: %
950: \frac{d \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)}{d t}
951: &=& b \gamma_{1,1}(t,t)+[a(t)-d] \gamma_{1,2}(t,t)
952: -c \gamma_{2,2}(t,t)+w u_1(t) \zeta_{1,2}(t,t) \nonumber \\
953: &&-w \tau u_1(t)\left[a(t) \zeta_{1,2}(t,t)-c \zeta_{2,2}(t,t)
954: +\left(\frac{w u_1(t)}{N-1}\right)
955: (N \rho_{1,2}(t,t)-\zeta_{1,2}(t,t)) \right], \\
956: %
957: \frac{d \rho_{1,1}(t,t)}{d t}&=&
958: 2 [1-w\tau u_1(t)]
959: \left[ a(t) \rho_{1,1}(t,t) - c \rho_{1,2}(t,t)
960: + w u_1(t) \rho_{1,1}(t,t)
961: + \frac{\beta^2}{2N} \right], \\
962: %
963: \frac{d \rho_{2,2}(t,t)}{d t}&=& 2 [b \rho_{1,2}(t,t)- d \rho_{2,2}(t,t)], \\
964: %
965: \frac{d \rho_{1,2}(t,t)}{d t}
966: &=& b \rho_{1,1}(t,t)+[a(t)-d] \rho_{1,2}(t,t)-c \rho_{2,2}(t,t)
967: +w u_1(t) \rho_{1,2}(t,t)
968: \nonumber \\&&
969: -w\tau u_1(t) [a(t) \rho_{1,2}(t,t) -c \rho_{2,2}(t,t)
970: +w u_1(t) \rho_{1,2}(t,t)],
971: \end{eqnarray}
972: where $a(t)$ and $\zeta_{\kappa,\lambda}(t,t)$
973: are given by Eqs. (16) and (19), respectively.
974:
975: A numerical comparison between AMM and
976: SDA is made in Fig. 8, where solid and chain curves
977: denote results of AMM and SDA, respectively.
978: For $\tau=0$ both methods lead to the identical result.
979: For small delays of $\tau=1$ and 2, results of SDA
980: are in fairly good agreement with those of AMM.
981: As the delay is increased to $\tau > 5$, however,
982: the discrepancy between the two methods becomes significant.
983:
984: %\begin{references}
985:
986: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
987:
988: %Linear SDDE-------------------
989: \bibitem{Kuchler92}U. K\"{u}chler and B. Mensch,
990: Stoch. Stoch. Rep. {\bf 40}, 23 (1992).
991:
992: \bibitem{Mackey95}M. C. Mackey and I. G. Nechaeva,
993: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52}, 3366 (1995).
994:
995: \bibitem{Duil99}S. Guillouzic, I. L'Heureux, and A. Longtin,
996: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59}, 3970 (1999).
997:
998: \bibitem{Ohira00}T. Ohira and T. Yamane,
999: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61}, 1247 (2000).
1000:
1001: \bibitem{Frank01}T. D. Frank and P. J. Beek,
1002: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64}, 021917 (2001).
1003:
1004: \bibitem{Frank03}T. D. Frank, P. J. Beek, and R. Friedrich
1005: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68}, 021912 (2003).
1006:
1007: \bibitem{Huber03}D. Huber, L. S. Tsimring,
1008: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 260601 (2003).
1009:
1010: %IF delay ------------------
1011:
1012: \bibitem{Marcus89}C. M. Marcus and R. M. Westervelt,
1013: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 39}, 347 (1989).
1014:
1015: \bibitem{Campbell96}C. van Vreeswijk, L. F. Abbott, and G. B. Ermentrout,
1016: J. Comp. Neurosci. {\bf 1}, 303 (1994).
1017:
1018: \bibitem{Foss96}J. Foss, A. Longtin, B. Mensour, and J. Milton,
1019: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 708 (1996).
1020:
1021: \bibitem{Pakdaman96}K. Pakdaman, J. Vibert, E. Bousssard, and N. Azmy,
1022: Neural Netwk. {\bf 9}, 797 (1996).
1023:
1024: \bibitem{Ernst98}U. Ernst, K. Pawelzik, T. Geisel,
1025: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, 2150 (1998).
1026: %'Delay-induced multistable synchronization of biological oscillators'
1027:
1028:
1029: %FN delay (N=1) -----------------------
1030: \bibitem{Frank01b}R. E. Plant,
1031: SIAM Appl. Math. {\bf 40}, 150 (1981).
1032:
1033: %FN delay (N=2)
1034: \bibitem{Campbell96}S. R. Campbell and D. Wang,
1035: Ohio State Univ. CIS-Tech. Rep. {\bf 47}, 1 (1996).
1036:
1037: %FN emsemble --------------------------
1038: %FN coupled (N=2)
1039: \bibitem{Campbell01}S. A. Campbell and M. Waite,
1040: Nonlinear Analysis {\bf 47}, 1093 (2001).
1041: %HR model
1042: \bibitem{Rosenblum04}M. G. Rosenblum and A. S. Pikovsky,
1043: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 114102 (2004).
1044:
1045: %HH time delay ----------------------
1046: \bibitem{Park96}M. Park and S. Kim,
1047: J. Korean Phys. Soc. {\bf 29}, 9 (1996).
1048:
1049: \bibitem{Hasegawa00b}H. Hasegawa
1050: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 69}, 3726 (2000).
1051: %---------------------------------------
1052:
1053: %phase model delay+noise
1054: \bibitem{Kim97}S. Kim. S. H. Park, and C. S. Ryu,
1055: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 2911 (1997).
1056:
1057: %IF noise+delay
1058: \bibitem{Borisyuk02}R. Borisyuk,
1059: BioSys. {\bf 67}, 3 (2002).
1060:
1061: %FN stochastic+delay (FPE)
1062: \bibitem{Zorzano03}M. P. Zorzano and L. V\'{a}zquez,
1063: Physica D {\bf 179}, 105 (2003).
1064:
1065: %---------------------------------------------------------
1066: \bibitem{Hasegawa04}H. Hasegawa,
1067: Phys. Rev. E {\bf xx}, yyyyyy (2004).
1068: %E print: cond-mat/0311021.
1069:
1070: \bibitem{Hasegawa03}H. Hasegawa,
1071: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 041903 (2003).
1072:
1073: \bibitem{Hasegawa03b}H. Hasegawa,
1074: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68}, 041909 (2003).
1075:
1076: %----------------------------------------------
1077: %FN model
1078: %\bibitem{FitzHugh61}R. FitzHugh,
1079: %Biophys. J. {\bf 1}, 445 (1961).
1080:
1081: %\bibitem{Nagumo62}J. Nagumo, S. Arimoto, andS. Yoshizawa,
1082: %Proc. IRE {\bf 50}, 2061 (1962).
1083:
1084: %FN stochastic
1085: \bibitem{Rod96}R. Rodriguez and H. C. Tuckwell,
1086: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 54}, 5585 (1996).
1087:
1088: \bibitem{Note6}
1089: The normalization factor of the coupling term
1090: is $(N-1)^{-1}$ in this paper
1091: while it is $N^{-1}$ in Ref. [21];
1092: results of the latter are obtainable from those
1093: of the former by a replacement of
1094: $w \rightarrow w (1-1/N)$
1095:
1096: \bibitem{Salami03}M. Salami, C. Itami, T. Tsumoto, and F. Kimura,
1097: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. {\bf 100}, 6174 (2--3).
1098:
1099:
1100: \bibitem{Note2}
1101: The bracket of $<G({\bf z},t)>$ denotes
1102: the average (or the expectation value)
1103: of an arbitrary function $G({\bf z},t)$
1104: of $N$ FN neuron ensembles, defined by
1105: $<G({\bf z},t)>=\int ... \int \;\:d{\bf z}
1106: \;G({\bf z},t) \:p({\bf z})$
1107: where $p({\bf z})$ denotes a probability distribution
1108: function (pdf) for $2N$-dimensional
1109: random variables of
1110: ${\bf z}=(x_1,...,x_N,y_1,....,y_N)^t$.
1111:
1112: \bibitem{Tuckwell98}H. C. Tuckwell and R. Rodriguez,
1113: J. Comput. Neurosci. {\bf 5}, 91 (1998).
1114:
1115: \bibitem{Tanabe01}S. Tanabe and K. Pakdaman,
1116: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 31911 (2001).
1117:
1118: \bibitem{Tanabe99}S. Tanabe, S. Sato, and K. Pakdaman,
1119: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60}, 7235 (1999).
1120:
1121: \bibitem{Tanabe01a}S. Tanabe and K. Pakdaman,
1122: Biological Cybernetics {\bf 85}, 269 (2001).
1123:
1124: %heterogeinity
1125: \bibitem{Cartwright00}J. H. E. Cartwright,
1126: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62}, 1149 (2000).
1127:
1128: \bibitem{Boschi01}C. D. E. Boschi, E. Louis, and G. Ortega,
1129: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65}, 012901 (2001).
1130:
1131: \bibitem{Hu00}B. Hu and C. Zhou,
1132: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61}, R1001 (2000).
1133:
1134: \bibitem{Vries01}G. De Vries and A. Sherman,
1135: Bull. Math. Biol. {\bf 63}, 371 (2001)
1136:
1137: \bibitem{Note3}Although we tried to perform AMM calculations
1138: by using the same FN model as
1139: Zorzano and V\'{a}zquez (ZV) adopted (Ref.[21]),
1140: we could not do it because the form of the network coupling
1141: of ZV was rather different from ours.
1142:
1143: \bibitem{Dhamala04}M. Dhamala, V. K. Jirsa, and M. Ding,
1144: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 74104 (2004).
1145:
1146: \end{thebibliography}
1147:
1148: \begin{figure}
1149: \caption{
1150: %Fig. D.
1151: The $w$-$\tau$ phase diagram showing the oscillating (OSC)
1152: and non-oscillating (NOSC)
1153: states for $\beta=0$ and $N=10$.
1154: For sets of parameters of $w$ and $\tau$ marked by circles,
1155: time courses of $\mu(t)$, $\gamma(t,t)$,
1156: $\rho(t,t)$ and $S(t)$ are calculated, whose results
1157: are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
1158: Along the horizontal dashed line ($\tau=60$),
1159: the $w$ dependence of $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$ is
1160: calculated in Figs. 4 and 5.
1161: }
1162: \label{fig1}
1163: \end{figure}
1164:
1165: \begin{figure}
1166: \caption{
1167: %Fig A.
1168: (color online).
1169: Time courses of $\mu_1(t)$, $\gamma_{1,1}(t)$, $\rho_{1,1}(t)$
1170: and $S(t)$ calculated by AMM theory (solid curves)
1171: and DS (dashed curves)
1172: with $A=0.10$, $\beta=0.01$, $w=0.1$ and $N=10$:
1173: (a) $\mu_1$, (b) $\gamma_{1,1}$, (c) $\rho_{1,1}$
1174: and (d) $S$ for $\tau=0$,
1175: (e) $\mu_1$, (f) $\gamma_{1,1}$, (g) $\rho_{1,1}$
1176: and (h) $S$ for $\tau=20$, and
1177: (i) $\mu_1$, (j) $\gamma_{1,1}$, (k) $\rho_{1,1}$
1178: and ($\ell$) $S$ for $\tau=60$.
1179: Chain curves at bottoms of (a), (e) and (i) express
1180: input spikes.
1181: }
1182: \label{fig2}
1183: \end{figure}
1184:
1185: \begin{figure}
1186: \caption{
1187: %Fig. B.
1188: Time courses of $\mu_1(t)$ showing the oscillation
1189: for (a) $w=0.1$ and (b) $w=-0.1$ with $\tau=60$, $\beta=0.01$ and $N=10$
1190: calculated by AMM,
1191: the result of (a) being shifted upwards by 2.
1192: }
1193: \label{fig3}
1194: \end{figure}
1195:
1196: \begin{figure}
1197: \caption{
1198: %Fig. E.
1199: The $w$ dependence of (a) $\sigma_o$ and (b) $\sigma_s$
1200: for $\beta=0.0001$ (solid curves) and $\beta=0.01$ (dashed curves)
1201: with $\tau=60$ and $N=10$.
1202: The region sandwiched by dashed, vertical lines
1203: is enlarged in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) for $\beta=0.0001$
1204: and 0.01, respectively.
1205: }
1206: \label{fig4}
1207: \end{figure}
1208:
1209: \begin{figure}
1210: \caption{
1211: %Fig. F.
1212: The $w$ dependence of $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$
1213: for (a) $\beta=0.0001$
1214: and (b) $\beta=0.01$ with $\tau=60$ and $N=10$.
1215: Thin and bold solid curves denote results of
1216: $10\:\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$, respectively, in AMM, whereas
1217: squares and circles express those
1218: of $10\:\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$,
1219: respectively, in DS.
1220: AMM results
1221: with different level $m$ (=1, 2, 3 and 5) are shown.
1222: Dotted lines are only for a guide of the eye (see text).
1223: }
1224: \label{fig5}
1225: \end{figure}
1226:
1227: \begin{figure}
1228: \caption{
1229: %Fig. H
1230: The $\beta$ dependence of $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$ for
1231: (a) $w=0.60$ and (b) $w=0.62$
1232: with $\tau=60$ and $N=10$.
1233: Thin and bold solid curves denote results of
1234: $10\:\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$, respectively, in AMM whereas
1235: squares and circles express those
1236: of $10\:\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$,
1237: respectively, in DS.
1238: Dotted lines are only for a guide of the eye.
1239: }
1240: \label{fig6}
1241: \end{figure}
1242:
1243: \begin{figure}
1244: \caption{
1245: %Fig. I
1246: The $N$ dependence of $\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$ for
1247: $\beta=0.01$, $\tau=60$ and $w=0.06$.
1248: Thin and bold solid curves denote results of
1249: $10\:\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$, respectively, in AMM, whereas
1250: squares and circles express those
1251: of $10\:\sigma_o$ and $\sigma_s$,
1252: respectively, in DS.
1253: Dotted lines are only for a guide of the eye.
1254: }
1255: \label{fig7}
1256: \end{figure}
1257:
1258: \begin{figure}
1259: \caption{
1260: %Fig. L.
1261: The time course of $\mu_1(t)$
1262: calculated in AMM (solid curves) and in
1263: a small-delay approximation (SDA) (chain curves)
1264: with $\beta=0.01$, $w=0.1$ and $N=10$ (see appendix C).
1265: }
1266: \label{fig8}
1267: \end{figure}
1268:
1269:
1270: \end{document}
1271:
1272:
1273: