Search for: All records

Many systems in physics, chemistry, and biology exhibit oscillations with a pronounced random component. Such stochastic oscillations can emerge via different mechanisms, for example, linear dynamics of a stable focus with fluctuations, limit-cycle systems perturbed by noise, or excitable systems in which random inputs lead to a train of pulses. Despite their diverse origins, the phenomenology of random oscillations can be strikingly similar. Here, we introduce a nonlinear transformation of stochastic oscillators to a complex-valued function Q 1 * ( x ) that greatly simplifies and unifies the mathematical description of the oscillator’s spontaneous activity, its response to an external time-dependent perturbation, and the correlation statistics of different oscillators that are weakly coupled. The function Q 1 * ( x ) is the eigenfunction of the Kolmogorov backward operator with the least negative (but nonvanishing) eigenvalue λ 1 = μ 1 + iω 1 . The resulting power spectrum of the complex-valued function is exactly given by a Lorentz spectrum with peak frequency ω 1 and half-width μ 1 ; its susceptibility with respect to a weak external forcing is given by a simple one-pole filter, centered around ω 1 ; and the cross-spectrum between two coupled oscillators can be easily expressed by a combination of the spontaneous power spectra of the uncoupled systems and their susceptibilities. Our approach makes qualitatively different stochastic oscillators comparable, provides simple characteristics for the coherence of the random oscillation, and gives a framework for the description of weakly coupled oscillators. 

Abstract Seminal work by A. Winfree and J. Guckenheimer showed that a deterministic phase variable can be defined either in terms of Poincaré sections or in terms of the asymptotic (long-time) behaviour of trajectories approaching a stable limit cycle. However, this equivalence between the deterministic notions of phase is broken in the presence of noise. Different notions of phase reduction for a stochastic oscillator can be defined either in terms of mean–return-time sections or as the argument of the slowest decaying complex eigenfunction of the Kolmogorov backwards operator. Although both notions of phase enjoy a solid theoretical foundation, their relationship remains unexplored. Here, we quantitatively compare both notions of stochastic phase. We derive an expression relating both notions of phase and use it to discuss differences (and similarities) between both definitions of stochastic phase for (i) a spiral sink motivated by stochastic models for electroencephalograms, (ii) noisy limit-cycle systems-neuroscience models, and (iii) a stochastic heteroclinic oscillator inspired by a simple motor-control system. 

Abstract Stochastic oscillations can be characterized by a corresponding point process; this is a common practice in computational neuroscience, where oscillations of the membrane voltage under the influence of noise are often analyzed in terms of the interspike interval statistics, specifically the distribution and correlation of intervals between subsequent threshold-crossing times. More generally, crossing times and the corresponding interval sequences can be introduced for different kinds of stochastic oscillators that have been used to model variability of rhythmic activity in biological systems. In this paper we show that if we use the so-called mean-return-time (MRT) phase isochrons (introduced by Schwabedal and Pikovsky) to count the cycles of a stochastic oscillator with Markovian dynamics, the interphase interval sequence does not show any linear correlations, i.e., the corresponding sequence of passage times forms approximately a renewal point process. We first outline the general mathematical argument for this finding and illustrate it numerically for three models of increasing complexity: (i) the isotropic Guckenheimer–Schwabedal–Pikovsky oscillator that displays positive interspike interval (ISI) correlations if rotations are counted by passing the spoke of a wheel; (ii) the adaptive leaky integrate-and-fire model with white Gaussian noise that shows negative interspike interval correlations when spikes are counted in the usual way by the passage of a voltage threshold; (iii) a Hodgkin–Huxley model with channel noise (in the diffusion approximation represented by Gaussian noise) that exhibits weak but statistically significant interspike interval correlations, again for spikes counted when passing a voltage threshold. For all these models, linear correlations between intervals vanish when we count rotations by the passage of an MRT isochron. We finally discuss that the removal of interval correlations does not change the long-term variability and its effect on information transmission, especially in the neural context.