Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 94 references

Time series analysis of coupled slow-fast neuron models: From Hurst exponent to Granger causality

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that sweeping coupling strength in small networks of slow-fast denatured Morris-Lecar neurons moves the dynamics from chaos to quasi-periodicity to synchronized bursting.

desk verdict A reproducible numerical atlas for coupled dML neurons; the quasi-periodicity claim needs direct support and the Granger section is overinterpreted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13570 v1 pith:IRYHACMP submitted 2025-07-17 nlin.CD

Indranil Ghosh , Hammed O. Fatoyinbo , Sishu S. Muni This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.CD MSC 37M1037D4537N2592C20
keywords slow-fastneurondenaturedMorris-LecarmodelburstingdynamicsHurstexponentsampleentropy0-1testGrangercausalityneuronalsynchronization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether standard time-series diagnostics can tell a coherent story about how coupling strength reshapes the dynamics of small networks of slow-fast bursting neurons. Using the denatured Morris-Lecar model as the node, it simulates seven coupling architectures and sweeps the coupling strength. It reports a repeatable sequence: strong inhibitory coupling yields chaos, near-zero coupling yields quasi-periodicity, and sufficiently excitatory coupling yields phase-synchronized fold/homoclinic bursting. It also finds that thermally sensitive coupling produces chaos only above 20 degrees Celsius, while memristive coupling produces anti-phase decay to equilibrium instead of bursting. The value would be a practical package for classifying real neuron time series.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a parameter sweep of the coupling strength, plus temperature for the thermal case, across coupled copies of the three-variable slow-fast denatured Morris-Lecar neuron, read through five diagnostics: the Hurst exponent for persistence, sample entropy for irregularity, the 0-1 test for chaos, the Pearson correlation coefficient for in-phase versus anti-phase synchronization, and the Kuramoto order parameter for phase coherence. The 0-1 test is the workhorse that separates chaotic from regular regimes, H and SE corroborate the classification, and Gamma and B identify synchronized bursting.

What would settle it

Re-run the parameter sweeps with a direct invariant measure, such as the maximal Lyapunov exponent of the full slow-fast system, and with much longer transients; if the regimes with K near 1 and H below 0.5 show no positive Lyapunov exponent, or if the discarded negative K and H values appear at parameter values classed as regular, then the claimed chaos boundaries are artifacts of the 0-1 and Hurst implementations rather than properties of the coupled neuron dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the same coupling-strength route appears across most tested architectures: for inhibitory coupling, the 0-1 test returns K near 1, the Hurst exponent drops well below 0.5, and sample entropy rises, identifying chaotic anti-correlated bursting; as the coupling weakens the dynamics become quasi-periodic; for excitatory coupling the nodes lock into fold/homoclinic bursting with H near 0.88, K near 0.16, correlation Gamma equal to 1, and Kuramoto order parameter near 1. The thermally sensitive variant shows chaos only for inhibitory coupling above the reference temperature, while below it the nodes burst anti-phase for inhibition and in-phase for excitation. Chemical coupling stays non-chaotic and asynchronous in the tested range, and memristive coupling gives anti-phase decay to a symmetric equilibrium for excitatory coupling. The paper also claims that Granger causality tests on the Josephson-junction and memristive systems reject non-causality, supporting the interpretation that node 1 drives node 2.

Load-bearing premise

The 0-1 test and Hurst rescaled-range estimates are assumed reliable on these slow-fast bursting time series, so negative K and negative H values can be dismissed as algorithmic glitches; if those values instead reflect real dynamics, the reported chaos and no-chaos boundaries move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With gap-junction coupling, strong inhibition is chaotic and anti-synchronous, while positive coupling gives complete in-phase synchronized bursting.
  • Thermally sensitive gap junctions switch on chaos only for inhibitory coupling above the reference temperature, so temperature acts as a second bifurcation parameter.
  • The Josephson-junction strategy reproduces the same chaos-to-quasiperiodicity-to-bursting route, indicating the route is not specific to simple diffusive electrical coupling.
  • Memristive coupling never becomes chaotic in the tested range and instead ends in anti-phase decay to a symmetric equilibrium point.
  • The Granger test with lags of at least two rejects non-causality from node 1 to node 2 in the Josephson and memristive two-neuron systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The recurrence of the same route across several distinct coupling mechanisms suggests the chaos-to-bursting transition may be a generic feature of slow-fast bursters, which could be tested on FitzHugh-Nagumo or Morris-Lecar neurons with the same diagnostics.
  • If the diagnostics are trusted, the combination of H and K could classify the sign and strength of synaptic coupling from a single voltage trace: low H with K near 1 points to strong inhibition, while H near 0.88 with K near 0.16 points to excitatory synchronized bursting.
  • The discarded negative K and negative H values are a testable weak point; recomputing those sweeps with longer runs and a direct Lyapunov exponent would show whether the reported boundaries are real or algorithmic artifacts.
  • Applying the same package to EEG data, as the authors suggest, assumes the dML time-series statistics transfer to real recordings, and that assumption can be checked by comparing H, SE, and K distributions between model output and recorded signals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a time-series analysis of small networks of slow-fast denatured Morris–Lecar (dML) neurons under seven coupling strategies (gap junction, thermally sensitive gap junction, chemical, Josephson junction, memristive, higher-order ring-star, and random chemical with autapses). For each model the authors vary the coupling strength (and temperature for the thermally sensitive case) and compute Hurst exponent, sample entropy, the 0–1 test for chaos, Pearson correlation, Kuramoto order parameter, and, for two models, a Granger causality test. The reported phenomenology includes chaos for inhibitory coupling and for elevated temperature, a quasi-periodic regime near zero coupling, synchronized bursting for excitatory coupling, and decay oscillations in some cases. Numerical data and code are made available on GitHub.

Significance. If the reported regime classifications are reliable, the paper provides a useful comparative survey of how popular coupling schemes shape the dynamics of slow-fast bursting neurons, and it doubles as a tutorial for applying several established time-series diagnostics. The strength of the paper is its breadth: seven coupling models, a consistent set of metrics, and openly available code and data, which facilitate reproduction and extension. The central qualitative route 'chaos → quasi-periodicity → synchronized bursting' is, however, supported only by indirect evidence, and the treatment of outlier metric values needs justification; these issues affect the paper's main claims and presently limit its significance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 (Eqs. (3.1), (3.5); Figs. 10, 16)] The quasi-periodic regime, which is load-bearing for the abstract and conclusion, is inferred only from intermediate 0–1 test values and visual inspection. For the gap-junction model at θ = -1 (Fig. 10c) the text states 'Quasiperiodicity is supported by a smaller value of K = 0.3195', and for the Josephson-junction model at θ = -0.5 and -0.1 (Fig. 16b,c) the reported values are K = 0.2207 and K = 0.1368. These values are not close to 0 (regular) or 1 (chaotic), but the 0–1 test only distinguishes chaotic from non-chaotic dynamics; moderate K values are also consistent with weak chaos, intermittency, or a long transient. No Lyapunov exponent, Poincaré section, or frequency spectrum is provided for these states. Please add a quasi-periodicity-specific diagnostic (e.g., Lyapunov spectrum, return map, or spectral peaks) for the states labeled quasi-periodic, or else weaken the claim accordingly.
  2. [Section 5 (Figs. 13, 19; text on H values)] The post-processing of 'spurious' metric values changes the reported regime boundaries without a validation of the claim that they are artifacts. In Fig. 13, K ≈ -0.48 at (θ, T) ≈ (-2.9, 21.1) is replaced by 0, and several negative H values are described as 'safely ignored'; in Fig. 19, five or six negative K values are replaced by 0. Negative values are not expected for the correlation-based 0–1 test or for the Hurst exponent as defined in Section 4, but discarding them is only legitimate if they can be shown to be algorithmic failures (e.g., by testing on known periodic and chaotic systems with the same time-series length). In addition, all sweeps use a single trajectory per parameter value with randomized initial conditions and no error bars, so sampling variability is unquantified. Please provide robustness checks (multiple initial conditions or noise realizations) and justify the outlier handling, or report the raw values separately.
  3. [Section 6 (Granger causality)] The Granger causality analysis as presented is not a meaningful directional test for the chosen models. For the Josephson junction coupling (3.5) and the memristive coupling (3.6), the couplings are bidirectional and symmetric (each node receives an equal and opposite coupling term), so rejecting the null 'x1 does not Granger-cause x2' is essentially a confirmation that the two time series are coupled, not evidence of a specific direction. Additionally, the text states that for (3.6) the applied strength is θ = 1, but the stated bifurcation range for this model in Table 1 and Section 5 is [-0.02, 0.01]; this appears to be a typo that should be corrected (likely θ = 0.01). Either test a genuinely unidirectional coupling (e.g., chemical coupling (3.4)) or clarify that the test is only detecting coupling, not causal direction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.3 (0–1 test equations)] In the definition after \(\tilde m(t;e)\), the growth rate is written as \(K(e) = \lim_{t\to\infty} \log m(t;e)/\log t\), but the corrected mean-square displacement \(\tilde m(t;e)\) is the quantity used in the regression approach; the formula should refer to \(\tilde m(t;e)\).
  2. [Section 4.3 (0–1 test parameters)] The text says 'Here e ∈ (0, 2π) is a small number', but the standard 0–1 test uses a randomly chosen frequency in (0, π) (or (0, 2π)) and does not require e to be small; the wording is misleading.
  3. [Section 4.1 (Hurst exponent range)] The manuscript states that 'the value of H lies in the range [0, 1]', but later reports and discusses negative H values (e.g., §5, Fig. 13 discussion). Please either restrict H to [0, 1] by definition or explicitly state that the R/S estimator can return values outside this range and how such values should be interpreted.
  4. [Figure captions (Figs. 13 and 23)] The caption of Fig. 13 refers to 'model (3.1)', but the figure is for the thermally sensitive gap junction model (3.2); similarly, the caption of Fig. 23 refers to 'model (3.7)', but the figure concerns the random chemical network (3.8). These cross-reference errors should be corrected.
  5. [Section 5 (gap junction sweep)] In the text describing Fig. 11, 'B decreasing monotonically from slightly above 0.9 to beloved 0.8' appears to be a typo for 'below 0.8'.
  6. [Section 5 (Josephson junction description)] In the paragraph after Fig. 16, 'random browninan motion' should be 'random Brownian motion'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Main classification results are self-contained; the Granger-causality conclusion is the only step that reduces to the model's own coupling construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 6 (Granger causality), applied to models (3.5) and (3.6); also discussed in Section 7 conclusion.]
    "(3.5) ˙x1 = f (x1, y1, I1) − Ic sin(ϕ) + θ(x2 − x1), ˙x2 = f (x2, y2, I2) + Ic sin(ϕ) + θ(x1 − x2); (3.6) ˙x1 = f (x1, y1, I1) + θρ(ϕ)(x2 − x1), ˙x2 = f (x2, y2, I2) + θρ(ϕ)(x1 − x2). Sec. 6: 'This is intuitively what we expected from our simulated model: the activity in the first neuron drives the activity in the second as incorporated by the coupling.'"

    Both coupling models are bidirectional by construction: each node equation contains the other node's voltage through equal-and-opposite diffusive terms, so x1 influences x2 whenever θ≠0 (and vice versa). The Granger test in Section 6 reports p≈0 for x1→x2 and presents this as detecting causality, yet the text concedes the result is 'as incorporated by the coupling.' The abstract and conclusion then restate the p-value as 'indicating causality,' but no directional mechanism beyond the symmetric coupling was tested or inferred; the claimed causal finding is equivalent to the model input, not an emergent prediction.

full rationale

The central time-series classification is not circular: the paper simulates fixed model equations, computes Hurst exponent, sample entropy, 0-1 test, correlation, and Kuramoto order parameter from the resulting time series, and labels regimes from those values. There is no parameter fitting or training step that would make the labels equal to the inputs. Self-citations to Ghosh et al. (2025) and Fatoyinbo et al. (2022) provide context for the single-cell and gap-junction behavior, but the current results are generated independently in the present manuscript, so these citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. One genuine circular step exists in Section 6: the Granger causality test is applied to bidirectional couplings whose equations already contain mutual influence terms, so concluding 'x1 drives x2' is a restatement of the model construction rather than an independent finding; the paper even says the result is 'as incorporated by the coupling.' This step is peripheral to the main chaos/quasi-periodicity/synchronization claims. I also note, as a non-circular methodological gap, that the quasi-periodic labels rest on intermediate 0-1 test values (e.g., K=0.3195 at θ=-1 in Fig. 10c, K=0.2207 and 0.1368 in Fig. 16b-c) plus visual inspection, without Lyapunov exponents or frequency spectra; that is an evidentiary weakness, not a circularity. The acknowledged limitation about static coupling configurations is similarly not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of hand-selected model and coupling parameters, on the reliability of the time-series diagnostics for slow-fast bursting signals, and on the validity of numerical integration. No new physical entities are introduced. The exclusion of 'spurious' metric values is an ad hoc data treatment that weakens the reported regime boundaries.

free parameters (4)
  • dML constants (A, alpha, gamma, epsilon) = A=0.0041, alpha=5.276, gamma=0.315, epsilon=0.0005
    Fixed throughout; chosen after extensive numerical experiments to ensure non-divergent dynamics (Section 5). The central claims about chaos and bursting depend on these values.
  • Coupling constants (delta0, vs, lambda, q, Ic, mu, kappa, beta) = delta0=1.3, vs=2, lambda=10, q=-0.25, Ic=3, mu=3, kappa=10, beta=5
    Fixed in Table 1 and Section 3; hand-chosen from prior literature or by convenience; the observed regimes depend on them.
  • Ring-star pairwise coupling strengths (mu, sigma) = mu=0.01, sigma=0.01
    Fixed in Section 3.6; small values chosen so the higher-order theta is the primary bifurcation parameter.
  • Initial conditions = x(0) ~ U[-1,1], y(0)=0.1, I(0) in [0.018,0.022]
    Sampled randomly; specific values influence the trajectory, though qualitative regimes are assumed robust. No seed reported, so exact reproduction is not possible.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 0-1 test and Hurst R/S analysis produce valid classifications for finite, slow-fast bursting time series of length N=50000.
    Invoked throughout Section 5; the paper treats spurious negative K and negative H values as algorithmic artifacts rather than genuine dynamics.
  • domain assumption The numerical integration (RK45, solve_ivp) accurately resolves the slow-fast dynamics over t in [0,4000].
    Section 5; no convergence tests or tolerances reported.
  • domain assumption The dML model (2.2) and the chosen coupling schemes faithfully represent neuron dynamics.
    Sections 2-3; the dML model is a reduction, and the coupling strategies are chosen from literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The specific parameter values in Table 1 are representative.
    Parameters are chosen to keep dynamics non-divergent, not derived from data or biophysical measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time series analysis of coupled slow-fast neuron models: From Hurst exponent to Granger causality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IRYHACMP

@misc{pith2026250713570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time series analysis of coupled slow-fast neuron models: From Hurst exponent to Granger causality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IRYHACMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13570}
}
read the original abstract

We perform time series analysis of small networks where every node is the slow-fast version of the denatured Morris--Lecar neuron proposed by Schaeffer and Cain. We choose popular coupling strategies from the literature and provide a detailed account of how varying their strength drives the dynamics of the small networks. Algorithms for time series analysis range from measuring their persistence (ability to remember past values), irregularity, chaos and quasiperiodicity, to synchronization between time series from every node within a network. Chaos is observed for inhibitory coupling strengths and for temperature higher than a reference temperature when the coupling is thermally sensitive. We observe quasi-periodicity when the coupling is very weak and synchronized bursting for highly excitatory coupling strength. In certain cases we also observe decay oscillations. Finally, a causality test is performed to detect whether the dynamics of one neuron is influencing the dynamics of the other in the coupled system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Typical time series and a phase por￾trait of (2.2) exhibiting bursting. Parameters con￾sidered are A = 0.0041, α = 5.276, γ = 0.315, and ε = 0.0005. Initial condition x(0) is sampled randomly from the uniform distribution [−1, 1], and (y(0), I(0)) = (0.1, 0.019). distinctly quantified using Hurst exponent and sam￾ple entropy, showing a higher value close to chaos. The 0 − 1 test quantifies chaos by allowing us to pl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of a gap junction coupling be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of a chemical coupling between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of a memristive coupling between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic of a small ring star network with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Schematics of higher-order connections within a triangle of neurons represented by two￾simplicial complexes. 3.7 A small random network with au￾tapse and chemical couplings. Finally, we introduce a small random network made of four nodes (dML neurons) which are connect…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic of an autapse. Note that the coupling considered is chemical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of a random network of four net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Phase portraits, p vs q plots, and time series of (3.1) with varying θ ∈ [−10, 10]. Other parameters are fixed as in table 1, and initial conditions x1(0) and x2(0) are sampled randomly from the continuous uniform distribution over the interval [−1, 1]. Other initial …
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Bifurcation plots of different metrics per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Phase portraits, p vs q plots, and time series of (3.2) with varying θ ∈ [−5, 5] for two different temperature values: T = 10◦ for panels (a)–(f) and T = 35◦ for panels (g)–(l). Other parameters are set in table 1. The initial conditions x1(0) and x2(0) are sampled ra…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two-dimensional bifurcation plots of dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Phase portraits, p vs q plots, and time series of the non-local chemical coupling (3.4) with varying θ ∈ [−0.005, 0.1]. Other parameters are fixed as in table 1, and x1(0) and x2(0) are sampled randomly from the continuous uniform distribution over the interval [−1, 1…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Bifurcation plots of different metrics per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Phase portraits, p vs q plots, and time series of the Josephson junction coupling (3.5) with varying θ ∈ [−1, 1]. Other parameters are fixed as in table 1, and x1(0) and x2(0) are sampled randomly from the continuous uniform distribution over the interval [−1, 1]. Oth…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Bifurcation plots of different metrics performing a parameter sweep on θ ∈ [−1, 1] for model (3.5). regime, and the nodes synchronize in phase as soon as the higher-order coupling becomes excitatory, see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Phase portraits, p vs q plots, and time series of the memristive coupling (3.6) with varying θ ∈ [−0.02, 0.01]. Other parameters are fixed as in table 1, and x1(0) and x2(0) are sampled randomly from the continuous uniform distribution over the interval [−1, 1]. Other…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Bifurcation plots of different metrics per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Phase portraits, p vs q plots, and time series of the higher-order gap junction coupling in the smallest ring-star network (3.7) with varying θ ∈ [−0.1, 0.1]. Other parameters are fixed as in table 1, and xn(0), n = 1, . . . 4, are sampled randomly from the continuous…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Bifurcation plots of different metrics per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Phase portraits, p vs q plots, and time series of four-node random network of chemical couplings with autapses (3.8) with varying θ ∈ [−0.01, 0.01]. Other parameters are fixed as in table 1, and xn(0), n = 1, . . . 4, are sampled randomly from the continuous uniform d…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Bifurcation plots of different metrics per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    https://github.com/amitg7/01ChaosTest.jl

    amitg7/01chaostest.jl: 0-1 test for chaos - distinguish between regular and chaotic dynamics in deterministic dynamical systems. https://github.com/amitg7/01ChaosTest.jl

  2. [2]

    Synchronization in multiplex Leaky Integrate-and-Fire networks with nonlocal interactions

    K Anesiadis and A Provata. Synchronization in multiplex Leaky Integrate-and-Fire networks with nonlocal interactions. Front. Netw. Physiol., 2: 0 910862, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Ardhanareeswaran, S

    R.S. Ardhanareeswaran, S. Sudharsan, M. Senthilvelan, and D. Ghosh. Intermittent cluster synchronization in a unidirectional ring of bursting neurons. Phys. Rev. E, 111 0 (1): 0 014215, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Belykh, E

    I. Belykh, E. De Lange, and M. Hasler. Synchronization of bursting neurons: What matters in the network topology. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94 0 (18): 0 188101, 2005

    2005

  5. [5]

    C. Berge. Hypergraphs: combinatorics of finite sets, volume 45. Elsevier, 1984

    1984

  6. [6]

    C. Bick, M. Goodfellow, C.R. Laing, and E.A. Martens. Understanding the dynamics of biological and neural oscillator networks through exact mean-field reductions: a review. J. Math. Neurosci., 10 0 (1): 0 9, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    C. Bick, E. Gross, H.A. Harrington, and M.T. Schaub. What are higher-order networks? SIAM Rev., 65 0 (3): 0 686--731, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Boya, S.S

    B.F.B.A. Boya, S.S. Muni, J.L. Echenaus \' a-Monroy, and J. Kengne. Chaos, synchronization, and emergent behaviors in memristive Hopfield networks: bi-neuron and regular topology analysis. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top., pages 1--15, 2024

    2024

Show all 94 references
  1. [9]

    Bronski, Y

    J.C. Bronski, Y. He, X.e Li, Y. Liu, D.R. Sponseller, and S. Wolbert. The stability of fixed points for a Kuramoto model with Hebbian interactions. Chaos, 27 0 (5), 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    A. Bukh, E. Rybalova, N. Semenova, G.I. Strelkova, and V. Anishchenko. New type of chimera and mutual synchronization of spatiotemporal structures in two coupled ensembles of nonlocally interacting chaotic maps. Chaos, 27 0 (11), 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Castanedo-Guerra, E

    I.T. Castanedo-Guerra, E. Steur, and H. Nijmeijer. Synchronization of coupled Hindmarsh--Rose neurons: effects of an exogenous parameter. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49 0 (14): 0 84--89, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    D.R. Chialvo. Generic excitable dynamics on a two-dimensional map. Chaos Soliton Fract., 5 0 (3-4): 0 461--479, 1995

    1995

  5. [13]

    L. Chua. Memristor-the missing circuit element. IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory, 18 0 (5): 0 507--519, 1971

    1971

  6. [14]

    Craddock, R.L

    R.C. Craddock, R.L. Tungaraza, and M.P. Milham. Connectomics and new approaches for analyzing human brain functional connectivity. Gigascience, 4 0 (1): 0 s13742--015, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Datseris and K.A

    G. Datseris and K.A. Haaga. ComplexityMeasures. jl : Scalable software to unify and accelerate entropy and complexity timeseries analysis. PloS One, 20 0 (6): 0 e0324431, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Deshpande, P

    G. Deshpande, P. Santhanam, and X. Hu. Instantaneous and causal connectivity in resting state brain networks derived from functional MRI data. Neuroimage, 54 0 (2): 0 1043--1052, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    A family of embedded runge-kutta formulae

    John R Dormand and Peter J Prince. A family of embedded runge-kutta formulae. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 6 0 (1): 0 19--26, 1980

    1980

  10. [18]

    Fatoyinbo, S.S

    H.O. Fatoyinbo, S.S. Muni, I. Ghosh, I.O. Sarumi, and A. Abidemi. Numerical bifurcation analysis of improved denatured M orris-- L ecar neuron model. In 2022 International Conference on decision aid sciences and applications (DASA), pages 55--60. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Feudel, A

    U. Feudel, A. Neiman, X. Pei, W. Wojtenek, H. Braun, M. Huber, and F. Moss. Homoclinic bifurcation in a Hodgkin--Huxley model of thermally sensitive neurons. Chaos, 10 0 (1): 0 231--239, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    FitzHugh

    R. FitzHugh. Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membrane. Biophys. J., 1 0 (6): 0 445--466, 1961

    1961

  13. [21]

    Follmann, T

    R. Follmann, T. Jaswal, G. Jacob, J.F. de Oliveira, C.B. Herbert, E.E.N. Macau, and E. Rosa. Temperature effects on neuronal synchronization in seizures. Chaos, 34 0 (8), 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Franzke, S.M

    C.L.E. Franzke, S.M. Osprey, P. Davini, and N.W. Watkins. A dynamical systems explanation of the hurst effect and atmospheric low-frequency variability. Sci. Rep., 5 0 (1): 0 9068, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Ghosh and H.O

    I. Ghosh and H.O. Fatoyinbo. Fractional order induced bifurcations in C aputo-type denatured M orris-- L ecar neurons. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., page 108984, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Ghosh, S.S

    I. Ghosh, S.S. Muni, and H.O. Fatoyinbo. On the analysis of a heterogeneous coupled network of memristive Chialvo neurons. Nonlinear Dyn., 111 0 (18): 0 17499--17518, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Ghosh, A.S

    I. Ghosh, A.S. Nair, H.O. Fatoyinbo, and S.S. Muni. Dynamical properties of a small heterogeneous chain network of neurons in discrete time. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 139 0 (6): 0 545, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Fatoyinbo, and S.S

    I Ghosh, H.O. Fatoyinbo, and S.S. Muni. Comprehensive analysis of slow-fast denatured morris-lecar neurons. Phys. Rev. E, 111 0 (4): 0 044204, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Gon c alves, I.S

    B.F.F. Gon c alves, I.S. Labouriau, and A.A.P. Rodrigues. Bifurcations and canards in two coupled fitzhugh--nagumo equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12596, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Melbourne

    G.A Gottwald and I. Melbourne. On the implementation of the 0--1 test for chaos. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst., 8 0 (1): 0 129--145, January 2009 a

    2009

  21. [29]

    Gottwald and I

    G.A. Gottwald and I. Melbourne. On the validity of the 0--1 test for chaos. Nonlinearity, 22 0 (6): 0 1367, 2009 b

    2009

  22. [30]

    Gottwald and I

    G.A. Gottwald and I. Melbourne. The 0--1 test for chaos: A review. In Chaos Detection and Predictability, Lecture notes in physics, pages 221--247. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    C.W.J. Granger. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, pages 424--438, 1969

    1969

  24. [32]

    Hodgkin and A.F

    A.L. Hodgkin and A.F. Huxley. A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol., 117 0 (4): 0 500, 1952

    1952

  25. [33]

    Hormuzdi, M.A

    S.G. Hormuzdi, M.A. Filippov, G. Mitropoulou, H. Monyer, and R. Bruzzone. Electrical synapses: a dynamic signaling system that shapes the activity of neuronal networks. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr., 1662 0 (1-2): 0 113--137, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    K.G. Horn, H. Memelli, and I.C. Solomon. Emergent central pattern generator behavior in gap-junction-coupled Hodgkin--Huxley style neuron model. Comput. Intell. Neurosci., 2012 0 (1): 0 173910, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Huang, Y

    W. Huang, Y. Wu, Q. Ding, Y. Jia, and X. Zhan. Effects of external periodic stimuli and higher-order interactions on the synchronization of Morris--Lecar neurons. Phys. A, 669: 0 130610, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    H.E. Hurst. Long-term storage of reservoirs. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 116, 1951

    1951

  29. [37]

    Ibarz, J.M

    B. Ibarz, J.M. Casado, and M.A.F Sanju \'a n. Map-based models in neuronal dynamics. Phys. Rep., 501 0 (1-2): 0 1--74, April 2011

    2011

  30. [38]

    Ikeda and J.M

    K. Ikeda and J.M. Bekkers. Autapses. Curr. Biol., 16 0 (9): 0 R308, 2006

    2006

  31. [39]

    Izhikevich

    E.M. Izhikevich. Dynamical systems in neuroscience. MIT press, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    Izhikevich and R

    E.M. Izhikevich and R. FitzHugh. F itz H ugh- N agumo model. Scholarpedia, 1 0 (9): 0 1349, 2006. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.1349. revision \#123664

    2006 doi

  33. [41]

    Kaizuka and T

    T. Kaizuka and T. Takumi. Postsynaptic density proteins and their involvement in neurodevelopmental disorders. J. Biochem., 163 0 (6): 0 447--455, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Korneev, V.V

    I.A. Korneev, V.V. Semenov, A.V. Slepnev, and T.E. Vadivasova. The impact of memristive coupling initial states on travelling waves in an ensemble of the FitzHugh--Nagumo oscillators. Chaos Soliton Fract., 147: 0 110923, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    Korneev, I.R

    I.A. Korneev, I.R. Ramazanov, A.V. Slepnev, T.E. Vadivasova, and V.V. Semenov. Traveling waves in an ensemble of excitable oscillators: The interplay of memristive coupling and noise. Chaos, 34 0 (12), 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    C. Kuehn. Multiple time scale dynamics, volume 191. Springer, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    Kuramoto

    Y. Kuramoto. Chemical oscillations, waves, and turbulence, volume 8. Springer, 1984

    1984

  38. [46]

    Kuramoto and D

    Y. Kuramoto and D. Battogtokh. Coexistence of coherence and incoherence in nonlocally coupled phase oscillators. Nonlinear Phenom. Complex Syst., 5 0 (4): 0 380--385, 2002

    2002

  39. [47]

    Majhi, M

    S. Majhi, M. Perc, and D. Ghosh. Chimera states in a multilayer network of coupled and uncoupled neurons. Chaos, 27 0 (7), 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Majhi, B.K

    S. Majhi, B.K. Bera, D. Ghosh, and M. Perc. Chimera states in neuronal networks: A review. Phys. Life Rev., 28: 0 100--121, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Mandelbrot

    B.B. Mandelbrot. Self-affine fractals and fractal dimension. Phys. Scr., 32 0 (4): 0 257, 1985

    1985

  42. [50]

    N.D. Mathur. The fourth circuit element. Nature, 455 0 (7217): 0 E13--E13, 2008

    2008

  43. [51]

    Mirzaei, M

    S. Mirzaei, M. Mehrabbeik, K. Rajagopal, S. Jafari, and G. Chen. Synchronization of a higher-order network of Rulkov maps. Chaos, 32 0 (12), 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Mishra, S

    A. Mishra, S. Ghosh, S.K. Dana, T. Kapitaniak, and C. Hens. Neuron-like spiking and bursting in josephson junctions: a review. Chaos, 31 0 (5), 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    Morris and H

    C. Morris and H. Lecar. Voltage oscillations in the barnacle giant muscle fiber. Biophys. J., 35 0 (1): 0 193--213, 1981

    1981

  46. [54]

    Muni and A

    S.S. Muni and A. Provata. Chimera states in ring--star network of chua circuits. Nonlinear Dyn., 101 0 (4): 0 2509--2521, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Muni, H.O

    S.S. Muni, H.O. Fatoyinbo, and I. Ghosh. Dynamical effects of electromagnetic flux on Chialvo neuron map: Nodal and network behaviors. Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos, 32 0 (09), July 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    A.S. Nair, I. Ghosh, H.O. Fatoyinbo, and S.S. Muni. On the higher-order smallest ring-star network of Chialvo neurons under diffusive couplings. Chaos, 34 0 (7), 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Njitacke, B

    Z.T. Njitacke, B. Ramakrishnan, K. Rajagopal, T.F. Fozin, and J. Awrejcewicz. Extremely rich dynamics of coupled heterogeneous neurons through a josephson junction synapse. Chaos Soliton Fract., 164: 0 112717, 2022

    2022

  50. [58]

    Nolte, E

    M. Nolte, E. Gal, H. Markram, and M.W. Reimann. Impact of higher order network structure on emergent cortical activity. Netw. Neurosci., 4 0 (1): 0 292--314, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    o ll, and P. H \

    I. Omelchenko, A. Provata, J. Hizanidis, E. Sch \"o ll, and P. H \"o vel. Robustness of chimera states for coupled FitzHugh-Nagumo oscillators. Phys. Rev. E, 91 0 (2): 0 022917, 2015

    2015

  52. [60]

    Parastesh, M

    F. Parastesh, M. Mehrabbeik, K. Rajagopal, S. Jafari, and M. Perc. Synchronization in Hindmarsh--Rose neurons subject to higher-order interactions. Chaos, 32 0 (1), 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    Park and K

    H.-J. Park and K. Friston. Structural and functional brain networks: from connections to cognition. Science, 342 0 (6158): 0 1238411, 2013

    2013

  54. [62]

    Qian and K

    B. Qian and K. Rasheed. Hurst exponent and financial market predictability. In IASTED conference on Financial Engineering and Applications, pages 203--209. Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference. Chicago Cambridge, MA, 2004

    2004

  55. [63]

    Richman and J.R

    J.S. Richman and J.R. Moorman. Physiological time-series analysis using approximate entropy and sample entropy. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol., 278 0 (6), 2000

    2000

  56. [64]

    Rybalova, V.S

    E. Rybalova, V.S. Anishchenko, G.I. Strelkova, and A. Zakharova. Solitary states and solitary state chimera in neural networks. Chaos, 29 0 (7), 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    Rybalova, A

    E.V. Rybalova, A. Zakharova, and G.I. Strelkova. Interplay between solitary states and chimeras in multiplex neural networks. Chaos Soliton Fract., 148: 0 111011, 2021

    2021

  58. [66]

    Schaeffer and J.W

    D.G. Schaeffer and J.W. Cain. Ordinary differential equations: B asics and beyond . Springer, 2018

    2018

  59. [67]

    Schölzel

    C. Schölzel. Nonlinear measures for dynamical systems. https://pypi.org/project/nolds/, 2019. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3814723

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    Seabold and J

    S. Seabold and J. Perktold. statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with Python . In 9th Python in Science Conference, 2010

    2010

  61. [69]

    Segall, S

    K. Segall, S. Guo, P. Crotty, D. Schult, and M. Miller. Phase-flip bifurcation in a coupled Josephson junction neuron system. Phys. B, 455: 0 71--75, 2014

    2014

  62. [70]

    A. Seth. G ranger causality. Scholarpedia, 2 0 (7): 0 1667, 2007. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.1667. revision \#127333

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    A.K. Seth. Causal connectivity of evolved neural networks during behavior. Netw. Comput. Neural Syst., 16 0 (1): 0 35--54, 2005

    2005

  64. [72]

    Seth and G.M

    A.K. Seth and G.M. Edelman. Distinguishing causal interactions in neural populations. Neural Comput., 19 0 (4): 0 910--933, 2007

    2007

  65. [73]

    Seung, D.D

    H.S. Seung, D.D. Lee, B.Y. Reis, and D.W. Tank. The autapse: a simple illustration of short-term analog memory storage by tuned synaptic feedback. J. Comput. Neurosci., 9: 0 171--185, 2000

    2000

  66. [74]

    Shepelev, A.V

    I.A. Shepelev, A.V. Bukh, S.S. Muni, and V.S. Anishchenko. Role of solitary states in forming spatiotemporal patterns in a 2d lattice of van der pol oscillators. Chaos Solit., 135: 0 109725, 2020

    2020

  67. [75]

    F. Shi, Y. Cao, S. Banerjee, A.M. Ahmad, and J. Mou. A novel neural networks with memristor coupled memcapacitor-synapse neuron. Chaos Soliton Fract., 189: 0 115723, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    G.R. Simo, P. Louodop, D. Ghosh, T. Njougouo, R. Tchitnga, and H.A. Cerdeira. Traveling chimera patterns in a two-dimensional neuronal network. Phys. Lett. A, 409: 0 127519, 2021

    2021

  69. [77]

    Somers and N

    D. Somers and N. Kopell. Rapid synchronization through fast threshold modulation. Biol. Cybernet., 68 0 (5): 0 393--407, 1993

    1993

  70. [78]

    Stewart, V.I

    M.G. Stewart, V.I. Popov, I.V. Kraev, N. Medvedev, and H.A. Davies. Structure and complexity of the synapse and dendritic spine. In The synapse, pages 1--20. Elsevier, 2014

    2014

  71. [79]

    Strogatz

    S.H. Strogatz. From K uramoto to C rawford: exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators. Phys. D, 143 0 (1-4): 0 1--20, 2000

    2000

  72. [80]

    Strogatz

    S.H. Strogatz. Sync: How order emerges from chaos in the universe, nature, and daily life. Hachette Books, 2012

    2012

  73. [81]

    D.J.T. Sumpter. The principles of collective animal behaviour. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci., 361 0 (1465): 0 5--22, 2006

    2006

  74. [82]

    Timofeev, M

    I. Timofeev, M. Bazhenov, J. Seigneur, and T. Sejnowski. Neuronal synchronization and thalamocortical rhythms in sleep, wake and epilepsy. Jasper's Basic Mechanisms of the Epilepsies [Internet]. 4th edition, 2012

    2012

  75. [83]

    Tlaie, I

    A. Tlaie, I. Leyva, and I. Sendi \ n a-Nadal. High-order couplings in geometric complex networks of neurons. Phys. Rev. E, 100 0 (5): 0 052305, 2019

    2019

  76. [84]

    Vadivasova, G.I

    T.E. Vadivasova, G.I. Strelkova, S.A. Bogomolov, and V.S. Anishchenko. Correlation analysis of the coherence-incoherence transition in a ring of nonlocally coupled logistic maps. Chaos, 26 0 (9), 2016

    2016

  77. [85]

    Van Hook

    M.J. Van Hook. Temperature effects on synaptic transmission and neuronal function in the visual thalamus. PloS one, 15 0 (4): 0 e0232451, 2020

    2020

  78. [86]

    Vismaya, S.S

    V.S. Vismaya, S.S. Muni, A.K. Panda, and B. Mondal. Degn–Harrison map: Dynamical and network behaviours with applications in image encryption. Chaos Soliton Fract., 192: 0 115987, March 2025

    2025

  79. [87]

    J. Wang, M. Lu, and H. Li. Synchronization of coupled equations of Morris--Lecar model. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 13 0 (6): 0 1169--1179, 2008

    2008

  80. [88]

    Z. Wang, M. Chen, X. Xi, H. Tian, and R. Yang. Multi-chimera states in a higher order network of FitzHugh--Nagumo oscillators. Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top., 233 0 (4): 0 779--786, 2024

    2024

  81. [89]

    L. Wei, D. Li, and J. Zhang. Dynamics and synchronization of the Morris--Lecar model with field coupling subject to electromagnetic excitation. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 140: 0 108457, 2025

    2025

  82. [90]

    Y. Xu, Y. Jia, J. Ma, A. Alsaedi, and B. Ahmad. Synchronization between neurons coupled by memristor. Chaos Soliton Fract., 104: 0 435--442, 2017

    2017

  83. [91]

    Yoshioka

    M. Yoshioka. Chaos synchronization in gap-junction-coupled neurons. Phys. Rev. E, 71 0 (6): 0 065203, 2005

    2005

  84. [92]

    Y. You, J. Tian, and J. Tu. Synchronization of memristive FitzHugh--Nagumo neural networks. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 125: 0 107405, 2023

    2023

  85. [93]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Xu, Z. Yao, and J. Ma. A feasible neuron for estimating the magnetic field effect. Nonlinear Dyn., 102 0 (3): 0 1849--1867, 2020

    2020

  86. [94]

    Zhang, M

    Y. Zhang, M. Lucas, and F. Battiston. Higher-order interactions shape collective dynamics differently in hypergraphs and simplicial complexes. Nat. Commun., 14 0 (1): 0 1605, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.