Firing Rate Tracks Gamma Frequency

Across PING networks trained at different inhibitory decay times, compare excitatory firing rate with gamma frequency and test accuracy.

Abstract

We tested whether excitatory firing tracks spectral-peak frequency in eighteen PING classifiers trained at six inhibitory decay times, with three seeds per condition. Across individual networks, frequencies spanned approximately 8–68 Hz, E rates 2.3–18.4 Hz and test accuracy 81–92%. Slower rhythms accompanied lower E firing while useful classification persisted. The association is consistent with cycle participation, but does not establish constant participation or identify a physical non-rhythmic baseline.

Results

Inhibitory-timescale training response

Final test accuracies spanned 81–92% across the trained networks. The retained histories show the preceding 50 validation epochs; these endpoint comparisons use final weights, not accuracy-selected epochs.

Validation accuracy and excitatory firing rate over training across the inhibitory-decay sweep.

Figure 1: (A) Reused validation accuracy and (B) excitatory rate, one line per trained network across 50 epochs. Subsequent test measurements used final-epoch weights; accuracy convergence did not select the epoch.

Inhibitory-timescale spectra

Per-network interpolated frequencies spanned approximately 8–68 Hz across the inhibitory-decay sweep (Fig. 2).

Population-E power spectra by τ_GABA, gamma peak shifting with the inhibitory time constant.

Figure 2: Population-E power spectral densities (PSDs), averaged across trials and then seeds at each inhibitory decay time. Dots mark binned peaks of these displayed means.

Inhibitory-timescale rasters

One MNIST trial through each τ_GABA network; the gamma cycle period lengthens with τ_GABA.

Figure 3: The same illustrative MNIST image at inhibitory decay times (A–F) 4.5, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 27 ms, respectively, using seed 42. Each panel shows 200 excitatory and 64 inhibitory neurons during the first 100 ms; displayed rates use the full populations and 200 ms trial. These probes illustrate timing, not the population frequency estimate.

Rate and accuracy versus frequency

Individual network rates spanned 2.3–18.4 Hz and accuracies 81–92% across the six inhibitory-decay conditions (Fig. 4).

Post-training E rate against gamma frequency; points lie on the affine fit line.

Figure 4: (A) Final-epoch excitatory rate and (B) test accuracy against gamma frequency. Each point is a mean over three seeds; error bars show ±1 standard error. The affine line fits six condition means.

Alternative rate-frequency fits

fitintercept (Hz)slope (Hz/Hz)Rfit2R_{\text{fit}}^{2}
affine-0.70.2850.997
through origin00.2710.995
Table 1.

Both least-squares fits used the same six condition means and centred total sum of squares. The origin-constrained fit tests how much the association depends on a free intercept.

Methods

We compared final-epoch dynamics across matched networks trained at different inhibitory decay times, keeping the evaluation data fixed.

  1. Reuse matched trained networks. Six inhibitory GABA decay constants, τGABA∈{4.5,6,9,12,18,27}\tau_{\text{GABA}} \in \{ 4.5 , 6 , 9 , 12 , 18 , 27 \} ms, and seeds 42–44 defined 18 PING networks. Training used 6,300 MNIST training images and 700 held-out validation images, 50 epochs of AdamW with zero weight decay, learning rate 4×10−44 \times 10^{- 4}, batches of 256, a time-averaged membrane-potential readout and no spike budget. Only inhibitory decay varied between conditions; simulation used 0.1 ms timesteps and 200 ms trials. We reused final-epoch weights to measure endpoint dynamics, without retraining or selecting weights by test performance.

  2. Measure fixed-trial responses. Each network received the same fixed subset of 1000 images from the official MNIST test partition. We measured classification accuracy, mean excitatory spikes per neuron per second, and each trial’s population-E trace over the full 200 ms. The illustrative raster used image index 0 and seed 42; a fixed random seed of 0 selected displayed neurons without replacement.

  3. Estimate rhythm frequency. We demeaned each trial’s trace and used a Welch density estimate with one full-trial Hann window [1], then averaged PSDs across trials. The largest peak between 5 and 150 Hz defined the candidate gamma frequency; its neighbouring linear-power values gave

    fpeak=fpeak,bin+12y0−y2y0−2y1+y2⋅Δfbin.(1)f_{\text{peak}} = f_{\text{peak,bin}} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{y_{0} - y_{2}}{y_{0} - 2 y_{1} + y_{2}} \cdot \Delta f_{\text{bin}} . \tag{1}

    Here fpeakf_{\text{peak}} is the interpolated spectral-peak frequency, fpeak,binf_{\text{peak,bin}} the peak-bin frequency, and Δfbin=5\Delta f_{\text{bin}} = 5 Hz the bin spacing; y0y_{0}, y1y_{1} and y2y_{2} are PSD values immediately below, at and above that bin. Because the peak search is restricted to the defined gamma band, the reported estimator is fγ≡fpeakf_{\gamma} \equiv f_{\text{peak}}. We clamped the correction to half a bin, using zero offset for zero curvature or a spectrum endpoint. Interpolation reduces bin quantisation but can remain biased [2]. Per-trial peak distributions were diagnostics; their medians did not enter the fit.

  4. Fit the rate–frequency relation. We averaged each network’s frequency and excitatory rate over the three seeds, then fitted the six condition points with equal weight by least squares:

    rE=a+βrf⋅fγ,rE=βrf,0⋅fγ.(2)r_{E} = a + \beta_{r f} \cdot f_{\gamma} , \quad r_{E} = \beta_{r f , 0} \cdot f_{\gamma} . \tag{2}

    Here rEr_{E} is mean excitatory firing rate in hertz, aa is the affine intercept in hertz, and βrf\beta_{r f} and βrf,0\beta_{r f , 0} are dimensionless fitted slopes. Both fits report Rfit2R_{\text{fit}}^{2}, the coefficient of determination using centred total sum of squares; error bars are sample standard deviations divided by 3\sqrt{3}.

  5. Display matched endpoint evidence. We displayed the retained frequency, rate and accuracy comparisons across inhibitory decay times, preserving seed-level values and across-seed summaries.

Appendix: Cycle-participation model

If a participation fraction ppartp_{\text{part}} of excitatory neurons emits exactly one spike during each cycle of duration 1fγ\frac{1}{f_{\gamma}}, its cyclic per-neuron rate is ppart⋅fγp_{\text{part}} \cdot f_{\gamma}. Adding a frequency-independent contribution aa gives

rE=a⏟non-rhythmic contribution+ppart⋅fγ⏟cyclic contribution.(3)r_{E} = \underbrace{a}_{\text{non-rhythmic contribution}} + \underbrace{p_{\text{part}} \cdot f_{\gamma}}_{\text{cyclic contribution}} . \tag{3}

This is a proposed interpretation of the affine form, conditional on stable participation. Neurons nearest threshold when inhibition drops could contribute one spike while others recover; long inhibitory decay could instead sustain tonic inhibition and leave a feedforward contribution. Neither mechanism is established by the fit alone. In particular, an extrapolated intercept need not be a physical baseline, and a negative intercept cannot represent a nonnegative background firing rate.

Network diagrams

PING classifier; illustrative model schematic.
Figure A1. PING classifier. Illustrative schematic of the documented model; it is not a recovered historical execution bundle or a measurement. XX denotes input spike channels, EE/II excitatory/inhibitory populations and RR the class readout. Every weighted pathway is labelled WXYW_{XY}, with target XX first and source YY second. Arrowheads show excitatory or feedforward drive; bars show inhibition. Recording and score reductions are omitted.

Parameters

Model values are read from original native snapshots through the selected presentation’s compute ancestry. Paired values are E / I. Initializer parent means and SDs describe the original weight distributions, in µS for conductance projections and dimensionless for the current-based readout; they are not measured trained-weight statistics. Missing snapshots or fields are unavailable; current recipes and historical copied tables are not substituted. The recorded configuration identifies the input, numerical and analysis choices of that computation; it does not establish a separate upstream training protocol.

ParameterPING
Network
E / I neuronsUnavailable / Unavailable
Output neuronsUnavailable
Neurons
Capacitance, E / I (nF)Unavailable / Unavailable
Leak conductance, E / I (µS)Unavailable / Unavailable
Resting voltage, E / I (mV)Unavailable / Unavailable
Threshold, E / I (mV)Unavailable / Unavailable
Reset, E / I (mV)Unavailable / Unavailable
Refractory period, E / IUnavailable / Unavailable
Synapses and weights
Input→E synapseUnavailable / Unavailable
E→I synapseUnavailable / Unavailable
I→E synapseUnavailable / Unavailable
E→Output synapseUnavailable / Unavailable
Input→E initializer parent mean / SDUnavailable / Unavailable
E→I initializer parent mean / SDUnavailable / Unavailable
I→E initializer parent mean / SDUnavailable / Unavailable
E→Output initializer parent mean / SDUnavailable / Unavailable
Native parameter stageUnavailable
Input and simulation
Timestep (ms)Unavailable
Duration (ms)Unavailable
Evaluation samples1000
Seeds42 / 43 / 44
Input rate (Hz)Unavailable
Post-burn exclusion (ms)Unavailable
Readout and training
Output neuron modelUnavailable
EpochsUnavailable
Checkpoint rolefinal_epoch
Checkpoint purposeendpoint_dynamics
Analysis
Frequency search (Hz)5 / 150
Count-bin width (ms)Unavailable
Autocorrelation maximum lag (ms)Unavailable

Dataset

Upstream: exp022 — MNIST

Downstream: exp046 — One Spike per Gamma Cycle, exp110 — Manuscript

Current runset

RunDateDurationSizeEvidenceStorageRan onVerification
exp041-r005-present2s572.7 KBCurrentR2LocalLocal: absent; R2: catalog-verified
exp041-r002-analyse3s1.8 MBCurrentR2LocalLocal: absent; R2: catalog-verified
exp041-r001-compute—7.7 MBCurrentR2UnknownLocal: absent; R2: catalog-verified
exp022-r001-compute2d 7h 4m 16s2 GBCurrentR2HPCLocal: absent; R2: catalog-verified

References

  1. P. D. Welch. “The use of the fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms.” IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 15(2), 70–73 (1967). doi:10.1109/TAU.1967.1161901

  2. J. O. Smith III. Spectral Audio Signal Processing. W3K Publishing (2011), “Quadratic Interpolation of Spectral Peaks” and “Bias of Parabolic Peak Interpolation.”