# Review Request: Detorakis #17

Closed
wants to merge 11 commits into
from

## Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants

### gdetor commented May 6, 2016 • edited by otizonaizit Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited Aug 29, 2016 (most recent)

 Dear @ReScience/editors, I request a review for the reproduction of the following paper: Multiple dynamical modes of thalamic relay neurons: rhythmic bursting and intermittent phase-locking, Wang, X-J, Neuroscience, 59(1), pg. 21–31, 1994. I believe the original results have been faithfully reproduced as explained in the accompanying article. The repository lives @ https://github.com/gdetor/ReScience-submission/tree/detorakis Best regards, Georgios Detorakis EDITOR Editor acknowledgment (@otizonaizit) May 9, 2016 Reviewer 1 (@heplesser) May 10, 2016 Reviewer 2 (@apdavison) May 9, 2016 Review 1 decision [accept] Aug 9, 2016 Review 2 decision [accept] Aug 28, 2016 Editor decision [accept] Aug 29, 2016

### gdetor added some commits May 6, 2016

 Submitting 
 feedf61 
 Submitting 
 642331b 
 Submitting 
 acd3f73 
 Submitting 
 b65714c 

Member

### rougier commented May 6, 2016

 @gdetor Thanks, an editor will be soon assigned. @otizonaizit Can you handle this request (I've a conflict of interest) ?
Member

### otizonaizit commented May 9, 2016 • edited Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited May 9, 2016 (most recent)

 EDITOR @rougier: yep, I am on it.
Member

### otizonaizit commented May 9, 2016

 EDITOR @heplesser: Can you be REVIEWER 1 for this? @apdavison: Can you be REVIEWER 2 for this?

### apdavison commented May 9, 2016 • edited by otizonaizit Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited May 9, 2016 (most recent)

 REVIEWER 2 @otizonaizit yes, I'd be happy to review this.

### FedericoV commented May 9, 2016

 I might also be able to help if needed. It's Python and differential equations. On Mon, 9 May 2016 at 11:54 Tiziano Zito notifications@github.com wrote: EDITOR @heplesser https://github.com/heplesser: Can you be REVIEWER 1 for this? @apdavison https://github.com/apdavison: Can you be REVIEWER 2 for this? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #17 (comment)
Member

### otizonaizit commented May 9, 2016 • edited Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited Jul 19, 2016 (most recent)

 Thanks Federico, I'd let @heplesser a bit of time to accept the review. In case he is not available for this review I'll come back to your offer. On Mon 09 May, 04:11, Federico Vaggi notifications@github.com wrote: I might also be able to help if needed. It's Python and differential equations. On Mon, 9 May 2016 at 11:54 Tiziano Zito notifications@github.com wrote: EDITOR @heplesser https://github.com/heplesser: Can you be REVIEWER 1 for this? @apdavison https://github.com/apdavison: Can you be REVIEWER 2 for this? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #17 (comment) You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #17 (comment)

### heplesser commented May 9, 2016 • edited by otizonaizit Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited May 10, 2016 (most recent)

 REVIEWER 1 @otizonaizit I'd be happy to review this.

Member

### otizonaizit commented May 10, 2016

 EDITOR @gdetor: your paper is under review by @heplesser (REVIEWER 1) and @apdavison (REVIEWER 2). Stay tuned ;)

### heplesser commented May 12, 2016 • edited by otizonaizit Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited May 18, 2016 (most recent)

 REVIEWER 1 @gdetor I will begin with a few remarks and return with more detailed comments later. First of all, your code ran out of the box and created the figures included in your manuscript. While I think that you are quite close to re-implementing Wang's model (I have not yet compared the equations from the paper in detail to your code), I believe that more effort is needed to establish the quality of your model thoroughly. My understanding of the idea behind ReScience is that your implementation of Wang's model would become the gold standard for anyone who would want to use this model, including reimplementation in other software. Therefore, it is, in my opinion, essential that you verify as exactly as possible that your implementation reproduces Wang's results. Where discrepancies occur, they need to be analyzed and explained in detail. Specifically, I think that it would much strengthen your model if you would recreate all figures and Table 1. To judge the quality of a model re-implementation, it is particularly interesting to see whether it responds to parameter changes in the same way as the original. Fig 1, bottom, Fig 2C, Table 1, and Fig 7, seem particularly relevant in that respect. You write that you needed to adjust some parameter values slightly to match Wang's figures, and speculate that this may be due to your use of a different integration method. This is problematic. Clearly, it might be that some of the details of the responses shown in Wang's paper are as they are due to the specific numeric method used, and it might very well be that the method you use is better, in the sense that the solutions you obtain are closer to the mathematically correct solution. But it might also be due to other effects. Therefore, I think it is important to first try to reproduce Wang as closely as possible, using the same integrator used originally. The precise step-size control is not given in the paper, but you could easily try the dopri5 4(5) order RK that comes with scipy.integrate.ode. This would allow you to explore to which degree your results depend on the integration method used. In general, I'd suggest that you allow the user to specify the integration method for easier testing. Where parameter adjustments are required, you should make explicit which parameters were changed from which value to which and with which effect.

Member

### otizonaizit commented May 18, 2016

 EDITOR @apdavison: any chance you can review this by the end of the week? If not, let me know when you'll have time :)

### apdavison commented May 18, 2016 • edited by otizonaizit Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited May 18, 2016 (most recent)

 REVIEWER 2 I've started the review (the code runs fine and creates the figures in the manuscript) but I'm at a conference tomorrow and Friday so can't finish it this week. I should have time on Monday (23rd).
Member

### otizonaizit commented May 18, 2016

 EDITOR @apdavison: great, thank you!

### apdavison reviewed May 23, 2016

 + + +def loadParameters(fname): + """ Load all the necessary paremeters from a file.

typo

### apdavison reviewed May 23, 2016

 + """ Load all the necessary paremeters from a file. + + | :param fname: File name containing all parameters + | :return: A dictionaty with all the parameters

typo

### apdavison commented May 23, 2016 • edited Edited 1 time apdavison edited May 23, 2016 (most recent)

 REVIEWER 2 The code ran without first time without problems, and a visual inspection shows a clean, easy-to-read structure which is ideal for a reference implementation. I am not, however, convinced that the results are quantitatively comparable to the original. The time axis in Figure 2 is 35 seconds in size. In the original Figure 3, however, the scale bar is 100 ms, which suggests the entire x-axis is about 1 second. It is difficult to compare the scales of Figure 3 and the original Figure 6, since the size of the axes is different. Figure 3 should be replotted on the same axes as the original. It is not sufficient to say that the integration method was different, and some of the parameters had to be changed to get the results to agree. If possible, the same integration method as the original, or one which is similar to it, should be used. If this would require extraordinary efforts, then it should at least be demonstrated that the results are consistent when (i) using two different integration methods and (ii) reducing the integration time step by a factor of ten. I do not think that reproduction of three figures showing membrane potential traces is sufficient to claim reproduction. Either Table 1 or Figure 7 or both should also be reproduced. Three minor comments on the typesetting of the paper: there should always be a space between the numerical value and unit symbol (see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html point 15) (I find the LaTeX "small space", \,, works well); unit symbols should be in roman type (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html point 6) (e.g. \mathrm{mV}) Subscripts should be in roman type if they are descriptive (e.g. I_{\mathrm{K}} since K is for potassium and is not a variable name). Italic type is for subscripts which represent variables (e.g. \beta_{n} is fine, since n is a variable of the model). (http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/checklist.html point 7).
Member

Member

### rougier commented Jun 7, 2016

 @gdetor @otizonaizit Any progress ?

### gdetor commented Jun 7, 2016

 I'm still running some long-running simulations in order to validate the model. I estimate by the end of this week, I will submit the updated version.
 Revised version 
 4396eff 

### gdetor commented Jun 14, 2016

 Dear all, Thank you again for your comments, corrections and suggestions. I submitted a revised version of the reference implementation following the comments of the reviewers. I recreated Figures 1, 2(partially), 3, 6, and 7. I changed all the figures time scales in order to be comparable to the original ones. Three integration method were tested (dopri5, Adams and BDF) and are now available as arguments in the code. All three methods give the same numerical results implying that is not the integration scheme responsible for any divergence from the original implementation. Furthermore, different time steps were tested without affecting the results. Any divergence from the original results has been addressed and discussed. The source code execution time is now quite long since it runs three parameters diagrams. Best regards, Georgios Detorakis
 Revised version 
 c666368 
Member

### otizonaizit commented Jun 15, 2016

 EDITOR @heplesser, @apdavison: could you have a second round of review? Thanks!
Member

### otizonaizit commented Jun 22, 2016

 EDITOR @heplesser, @apdavison: Any news? When do you think you could have a second round of review for the submission?

### heplesser commented Jun 22, 2016

 I hope to get around to it within a week. On 22 Jun 2016, at 11:26, Tiziano Zito notifications@github.com wrote: EDITOR @heplesser, @apdavison: Any news? When do you think you could have a second round of review for the submission? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread. Dr. Hans Ekkehard Plesser, Associate Professor Section Head Dept. of Mathematical Sciences and Technology Norwegian University of Life Sciences PO Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway Phone +47 6723 1560 Email hans.ekkehard.plesser@nmbu.no Home http://arken.umb.no/~plesser

### apdavison commented Jun 24, 2016

 Well, the simulations are still running... :-)

Member

### rougier commented Jul 4, 2016

 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF @otizonaizit Any update ?

### heplesser commented Jul 4, 2016 • edited by otizonaizit Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited Jul 19, 2016 (most recent)

 REVIEWER 1 @gdetor Table 2, top row: Do you mean "2.5 x period" or "2 x period, 5 x period"? In footnote 1 on p 2, you write that "we decided to use BDF". But if simulations.py, you use Adams for all figures except for Fig 5, where you use BDF. You write on p 2 "BDF and Adams provide exactly the same numerical results as [dopri5]". This is not true. I ran the code for Fig 2 using Adams and BDF with vode, dopri5, and lsoda (for Iapp=-0.6). All generated different results around spikes. If one, e.g., set a spike threshold at V = 0 mV, these differences will occasionally lead to shifts in spike time by one time step. The time axis in your Fig 2 is from 0 to 2 s. This raises two questions: When running the simulation code for Fig 2 and plotting the data directly, there is a strong transitory effect during the first 25 ms. This is completely absent in your Fig 2. It is plausible that Wang left out the transition in his figure, and it is justifiable in your work, but you need to be explicit on this. Time in your Fig 2 runs from 0 to 2 s, while in the corresponding Fig 3 in the original paper, the horizontal axis spans 1 s (estimate). Thus, your figure seems off by a factor 2. How can you claim that "there as no difference between the reference implementation and the original one"? In Fig 2, you should also include all cases that Wang had in his figure, and draw all lines in the same color---no need for color maps in graphs containing a single line. The I_app labels could be placed just to the right of the plot, not in it, and would look better without frames. Fig 1: This paper is about reproducing Wang's results. This would be much easier to check if you chose figures that were as close as at all possible to Wang's figures. So please use the same axes labelling as Wang, and use a contour line graph instead of a greyscale graph. Your greyscale graph shows a fuzzy upper edge of the main triangle structure, with "tongues" sticking out to the right. This seems to be in contrast to Wang's figure. Is this an artifact in your simulations? Did Wang possibly coarse-grain the original figure? Unfortunately, the original paper does not contain explicit information on how many P0 and P1 values were evaluated to create that figure. Why do you still not reproduce Wang's Figs 2, 4 and 5? Fig 3 (Wang's Fig 6): Please use the same axis limits and proportions as Wang for comparability. Comparing the voltage traces visually, it seems to me that your figure shows noticeably fewer spikes, while the h-signal is significantly more regular than in Wang's figure. Fig 4 (Wang's Fig 7): If I understand your figure caption correctly, then the top left figure corresponds to Wang's 7A, while the top right corresponds to Wang's 7B. You describe the curves as "qualitatively similar to the original ones". Again, comparison is difficult because you use different axis limits and do not show the individual data points as in the original. But it appears to me that the reproduction of 7B in particular is quite different from Wang's figure: You figure shows a very clear stepping pattern, while Wang's figure shows a smooth curve. This smoothness of Wang's curves may be due to a limited number of data points.

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 + significant differences for the randomly picked up spike waveform shown in + this figure (in general we detected differences up to $5\, \Rm{mV}$, data + not shown here). Continuous line -- \emph{dopri5}, dashed line -- \emph{Adams}, + and dashed-dotted line -- \emph{BDF}.}

#### heplesser Aug 9, 2016

Move line-style info up. Note that -- gives a from-to dash ("5--7 pages"), while --- gives the em-dash you probably wanted here; according to Knuth, there should be no space around em-dashes.

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 +implementation to rhythmic hyperpolarization. In \cite{wang:1994} this is +illustrated in Fig~$1$\footnote{From now and then all the + figures of the original article will be referred as Fig} of the original +article.

#### heplesser Aug 9, 2016

This is double-up: "In Wang (1994) ... of the original article". Wang is the original article.

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 +is omitted in the rest of the figures in this work). It is apparent that right +and left panels are in an agreement indicating that the reference model +produces reliable results. +The author in \cite{wang:1994} shows in Fig~$1$ a shaded are where the number

#### heplesser Aug 9, 2016

Drop "The author in", just "Wang (1994) shows

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 +produces reliable results. +The author in \cite{wang:1994} shows in Fig~$1$ a shaded are where the number +of spikes is $0.5$. This number appears if one computes the average of +suprathreshold and subthreshold spikes in one period.

#### heplesser Aug 9, 2016

"This number appears ...": what do you mean by "appears"?

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 + | :param inp_type: Input signal type ['const' - constant current + 'periodic' - periodic pulses] + 'pulse' - one pulse at the + beggining of simulation

"beginning"

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 +Three different methods have been tested in this work (\emph{dopri5}, +\emph{Adams}, \emph{BDF}, \cite{ascher:1998}). \emph{dopri5} is the closest +numerical method to the one used by the author in the original article (the +author has numerically integrated the system of the four ODEs by using a

#### heplesser Aug 9, 2016

"(the author has ...": it is not entirely clear whether "the author" here refers to Wang or to you. Write "Wang" for clarity" or cut it to just "(fifth-order adaptive stepsize Runge-Kutta)".

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 + three methods. The membrane potential amplitude was sometimes different + for the same spike events, however that difference was not too high as + Figure~\ref{Fig:1} shows (up to $4\, \Rm{mV}$ at maximum). Thus we decided + to use the \emph{Adams} method.}.

#### heplesser Aug 9, 2016

I think this is important information that should not be hidden in a footnote.

### heplesser reviewed Aug 9, 2016

 + (see text for more details). The amplitude for the three methods have no + significant differences for the randomly picked up spike waveform shown in + this figure (in general we detected differences up to $5\, \Rm{mV}$, data + not shown here). Continuous line -- \emph{dopri5}, dashed line -- \emph{Adams},

#### heplesser Aug 9, 2016

I am confused: You show a graph in which the solution of all three methods follow each other closely, but then you mention in passing in the legend that you observed differences of up to 5 mV, which is about 10% of the entire range of voltage excursions. Shouldn't you show such a worst-case example as well?

Member

### rougier commented Aug 10, 2016 • edited Edited 1 time rougier edited Aug 11, 2016 (most recent)

 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF @heplesser @otizonaizit There is no definitive criterion for assessing a replication is successful. In some case it is purely qualitative while in some others, we would need the exact replication of numerical results. In this specific case, it is mostly the decision of the author, the reviewer and the editor to decide if the original results can be reproduced. Furthermore, I suspect there might exist some numerical discrepancies that cannot be solved without full access to the original source code. Look for instance at http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.04339 and you will realize the difficulty in having a bit for bit reproduction. And of course, we can also open an issue after this review to see if we can define some a set of formal criterion to decide if a replication is ok or not.
Member

### otizonaizit commented Aug 11, 2016

 EDITOR @heplesser, @rougier: I think that the manuscript can be considered to successfully replicate the original paper, provided the authors address @heplesser comments either implementing his suggestions or explaining why they can't be implemented. I am still waiting for @apdavison final recommendation to be able to come to a decision, but given the tone of his review I think we are very close to a positive outcome, @gdetor.

### apdavison commented Aug 17, 2016

 I recommend acceptance. Concerning Figure 2, I doubt it is possible to more closely reproduce the original Fig 1 in the absence of information about which method was used to produce the smooth curves, although I agree with @heplesser that some comment should be made about this in the manuscript.
 Review #3 comments addressed 
 2b7cbfc 

### gdetor commented Aug 18, 2016

 Dear all, Thank you again for your comments/suggestions/corrections. All the comments have been addressed (code, text, and figures). I think that now almost all of the figures are quite close to the original ones except my second one (first figure in Wang). I tried a high resolution (100 x 100) discretization of the parameter space, and now the curves are smoother than previous ones but still there are some differences. Best regards, Georgios Detorakis
Member

### otizonaizit commented Aug 19, 2016 • edited Edited 1 time otizonaizit edited Aug 19, 2016 (most recent)

 EDITOR @gdetor: congratulations, I hereby accept the submission @heplesser, @apdavison: thanks to the reviewers for their helpful comments, I think they helped in improving the paper significantly. @gdetor, @rougier: I am currently mostly offline or with very flaky internet connection. I'll publish the paper in two weeks when I'm back to civilization if this is fine with you.

Member

### rougier commented Aug 20, 2016

 @otizonaizit Fine for me. The publication process is still not straightforward so you might need my help but it would be good to have your comments on what could be modified.
Member

### otizonaizit commented Aug 22, 2016

 Hi @gdetor, Reviewer 1 noticed that I did not wait for his recommendation before deciding, and I think his further comments to the manuscript are definitely worth addressing. @heplesser: can you please post your further comments? @gdetor: could you please address @heplesser comments so that we can finally accept and publish the paper? Thanks!

### gdetor commented Aug 22, 2016

 @otizonaizit Sure, I'll wait for the comments.

### heplesser commented Aug 22, 2016

 @gdetor I believe that the paper is essentially sound and should be published, but there are a few things to fix: In the new Figure 1, the horizontal axis does not show "Error", but "Voltage Difference" between the solutions. The unit of measurement should be given, which, I believe, is mV here. On the vertical axis, the unit should not be Hz, which applies to periodic processes only. If I read the code correctly, data is taken by binning values from simulation over 6000 ms into 30 bins, so what is shown is number of occurances of voltage differences over 6 seconds. I am also not sure that this diagram really provides useful information. Maybe it would be better to plot one solution as function of the other solution. In case of perfect agreement, one would just get a straight line along the diagonal, deviations show where/how the different solvers behave differently. I am also not sure what you mean by "overlapping spike events". Figure 6 now looks much better than in the previous version, in fine agreement with the original. From the changes in code/params/params_figure6a.cfg -phi_K = 28.6 +phi_K = 28.5714285714  it appears that this very delicate adjustment in phi_K was required to reach agreement (phi_K is phi_n in the paper). The latter value is indeed the correct decimal value for 200/7 from the paper (it would be useful to add this as a comment in the config file). But I think it would be very useful for readers and people who work with the code to know that a change in phi_K by about 0.1% will have distinct effects on the behavior of the neuron. Furthermore, Table 5 of the manuscript gives a value of $\phi_n = 28.5$. That value is according to the code/params/*.cfg files used for figures 1, 3 and 5, while figure 2 uses 28.6, and figure 4, 6 and 7 use 200/7. Given the significant effect of minuscule changes, this is not acceptable. All figures should be based on 200/7, and that value should be given in the Table (Btw, does your config-file format allow for comments? It is not immediately obvious that 200/7 == 28.5714285714) This raises another concern: Are all other parameters correct as given in the Tables? Finally, a figure reference is incorrect (Figure ??) in the conclusions, and the English in the parts of the text that came in with the most recent revision would benefit from some polishing.
 4th review - corrections 
 ab2ca13 

### gdetor commented Aug 25, 2016

 Dear all, I've just committed new corrections according to reviewers comments. Furthermore, In the new Figure 1, the horizontal axis does not show "Error", but "Voltage Difference" between the solutions. The unit of measurement should be given, which, I believe, is mV here. On the vertical axis, the unit should not be Hz, which applies to periodic processes only. If I read the code correctly, data is taken by binning values from simulation over 6000 ms into 30 bins, so what is shown is number of occurances of voltage differences over 6 seconds. I am also not sure that this diagram really provides useful information. Maybe it would be better to plot one solution as function of the other solution. In case of perfect agreement, one would just get a straight line along the diagonal, deviations show where/how the different solvers behave differently. Figure 1 has now changed according to reviewer's suggestion. Figure 6 now looks much better than in the previous version, in fine agreement with the original. From the changes in code/params/params_figure6a.cfg -phi_K = 28.6 +phi_K = 28.5714285714 it appears that this very delicate adjustment in phi_K was required to reach agreement (phi_K is phi_n in the paper). The latter value is indeed the correct decimal value for 200/7 from the paper (it would be useful to add this as a comment in the config file). But I think it would be very useful for readers and people who work with the code to know that a change in phi_K by about 0.1% will have distinct effects on the behavior of the neuron. The problem was not the value of phi (since I tried several simulations wth both values 28.6 and 28.5714285714) but the total simulation time. The signal was too short for any further analysis. By increasing simulation time everything was better. Furthermore, Table 5 of the manuscript gives a value of $\phi_n = 28.5$. That value is according to the code/params/*.cfg files used for figures 1, 3 and 5, while figure 2 uses 28.6, and figure 4, 6 and 7 use 200/7. Given the significant effect of minuscule changes, this is not acceptable. All figures should be based on 200/7, and that value should be given in the Table (Btw, does your config-file format allow for comments? It is not immediately obvious that 200/7 == 28.5714285714) Thank you for these comments. I found out that due to previous corrections and modifications some of the values in Table 5 were wrong. I double checked and corrected all the wrong values.

### heplesser commented Aug 26, 2016

 @gdetor Thank you very much for your revisions! I must admit it is a relieve to see that the difference in Fig 6 was due to simulation time, not due to tiny changes in phi_K. I think it would be useful to point out in the discussion of that figure (and of figure 2) that one needs to collect enough data to get results close to the originals. This is a valuable insight from your reproduction efforts and should not be hidden just in a table. Concerning Table 2, I would us "Simulated times", not "Simulation times". The latter could be misunderstood as the time it took to run the simulation. For Fig 2, it should be $15\times\text{period}$, to that "period" is set as roman text. Concerning Fig 1: It makes things look much worse than they are because you are connecting the dots. If you don't, it looks much better (see attached notebook); there, I shade an area +-2mV from the diagonal in addition. But note that you code for checking correctness of spikes is not correct: (dopri[spks1,0]-adams[spks2,0]).sum())  The sum always ends up zero, even though there are differences in spike times. For Adams vs DoPri5, only a single spike is one time step (0.05 ms) late, while for BDF vs DoPri5 more than half the spikes are 0.05ms late. But the conclusion seems sensible that Adams gives comparable spike trains and can be used. detorakis_test.ipynb.zip
 New comments addressed 
 94498a6 

### heplesser commented Aug 28, 2016

 @otizonaizit @gdetor Thank you for the revision. The paper now successfully reproduces the original results and I recommend acceptance. I just suggest two small language fixes. On p 2., "The most stroking difference found for the amplitude of membrane potential" should be "The most striking difference is found ...", and in Table 2, also the table caption should be changed to "Simulated time".
 Typos corrected 
 7ed0498 

### gdetor commented Aug 29, 2016

 Dear all, Thank you once again. I corrected the two typos and the final version is now in the repository.
Member

### otizonaizit commented Aug 29, 2016

 EDITOR @gdetor: congratulations, I hereby accept the submission, this time for real ;-) @heplesser, @apdavison: thanks to the reviewers again for their helpful comments. @gdetor, @rougier: I am currently mostly offline or with very flaky internet connection. I'll publish the paper in next week when I'm back to civilization if this is fine with you.

Member

### otizonaizit commented Sep 7, 2016

 @gdetor: can you give us some keywords to use for the publication? Right now I have: Neuroscience, Python, Replication. Some more detailed keyword would help. Thanks!
Member

### otizonaizit commented Sep 7, 2016

 This submission has been accepted for publication, and has been published and appeared at http://rescience.github.io/read/

### gdetor commented Sep 7, 2016

 @otizonaizit Some extra keywords: Conductance-based model, Thalamic relay neurons, Intermittent phase-locking, Spindle oscillation, Delta oscillation

### damiendr commented Sep 7, 2016

 Just noticed that the published PDF does not include the last commit for the typos.
Member

### rougier commented Sep 7, 2016 • edited Edited 1 time rougier edited Sep 7, 2016 (most recent)

 @damiendr Thanks ! @otizonaizit Do you where we messed up things ?
Member

### rougier commented Sep 8, 2016

 @damiendr Should be fixed by now.