IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1000456.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards Reproducible Descriptions of Neuronal Network Models

Author

Listed:
  • Eilen Nordlie
  • Marc-Oliver Gewaltig
  • Hans Ekkehard Plesser

Abstract

Progress in science depends on the effective exchange of ideas among scientists. New ideas can be assessed and criticized in a meaningful manner only if they are formulated precisely. This applies to simulation studies as well as to experiments and theories. But after more than 50 years of neuronal network simulations, we still lack a clear and common understanding of the role of computational models in neuroscience as well as established practices for describing network models in publications. This hinders the critical evaluation of network models as well as their re-use.We analyze here 14 research papers proposing neuronal network models of different complexity and find widely varying approaches to model descriptions, with regard to both the means of description and the ordering and placement of material. We further observe great variation in the graphical representation of networks and the notation used in equations. Based on our observations, we propose a good model description practice, composed of guidelines for the organization of publications, a checklist for model descriptions, templates for tables presenting model structure, and guidelines for diagrams of networks. The main purpose of this good practice is to trigger a debate about the communication of neuronal network models in a manner comprehensible to humans, as opposed to machine-readable model description languages.We believe that the good model description practice proposed here, together with a number of other recent initiatives on data-, model-, and software-sharing, may lead to a deeper and more fruitful exchange of ideas among computational neuroscientists in years to come. We further hope that work on standardized ways of describing—and thinking about—complex neuronal networks will lead the scientific community to a clearer understanding of high-level concepts in network dynamics, and will thus lead to deeper insights into the function of the brain.Author Summary: Scientists make precise, testable statements about their observations and models of nature. Other scientists can then evaluate these statements and attempt to reproduce or extend them. Results that cannot be reproduced will be duly criticized to arrive at better interpretations of experimental results or better models. Over time, this discourse develops our joint scientific knowledge. A crucial condition for this process is that scientists can describe their own models in a manner that is precise and comprehensible to others. We analyze in this paper how well models of neuronal networks are described in the scientific literature and conclude that the wide variety of manners in which network models are described makes it difficult to communicate models successfully. We propose a good model description practice to improve the communication of neuronal network models.

Suggested Citation

  • Eilen Nordlie & Marc-Oliver Gewaltig & Hans Ekkehard Plesser, 2009. "Towards Reproducible Descriptions of Neuronal Network Models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1000456
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000456
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000456&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000456?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aumann, Craig A., 2007. "A methodology for developing simulation models of complex systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 385-396.
    2. Gregory T Reeves & Scott E Fraser, 2009. "Biological Systems from an Engineer's Point of View," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-4, January.
    3. Erik De Schutter, 2008. "Why Are Computational Neuroscience and Systems Biology So Separate?," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-6, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ashok Litwin-Kumar & Maurice J Chacron & Brent Doiron, 2012. "The Spatial Structure of Stimuli Shapes the Timescale of Correlations in Population Spiking Activity," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Kael Dai & Juan Hernando & Yazan N Billeh & Sergey L Gratiy & Judit Planas & Andrew P Davison & Salvador Dura-Bernal & Padraig Gleeson & Adrien Devresse & Benjamin K Dichter & Michael Gevaert & James , 2020. "The SONATA data format for efficient description of large-scale network models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-24, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aliyeva, Xeniya & Memon, Shazim Ali & Nazir, Kashif & Kim, Jong, 2024. "Energy consumption forecasting in PCM-integration buildings considering building and environmental parameters for future climate scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    2. Santos, Mário & Bastos, Rita & Cabral, João Alexandre, 2013. "Converting conventional ecological datasets in dynamic and dynamic spatially explicit simulations: Current advances and future applications of the Stochastic Dynamic Methodology (StDM)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 258(C), pages 91-100.
    3. Lorena Cadavid & Luisa Díez-Echavarría & Alejandro Valencia, 2017. "Spin-Off Activities At Higher Educational Institutions: Performance Implications From A Modeling Perspective," Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship (JDE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(02), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Christian Dupraz & Kevin J. Wolz & Isabelle Lecomte & Grégoire Talbot & Grégoire Vincent & Rachmat Mulia & François Bussière & Harry Ozier-Lafontaine & Sitraka Andrianarisoa & Nick Jackson & Gerry Law, 2019. "Hi-sAFe: A 3D Agroforestry Model for Integrating Dynamic Tree–Crop Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-25, April.
    5. Troost, Christian & Huber, Robert & Bell, Andrew R. & van Delden, Hedwig & Filatova, Tatiana & Le, Quang Bao & Lippe, Melvin & Niamir, Leila & Polhill, J. Gareth & Sun, Zhanli & Berger, Thomas, 2023. "How to keep it adequate: A protocol for ensuring validity in agent-based simulation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 159, pages 1-21.
    6. Ginzburg, Lev R. & Jensen, Christopher X.J. & Yule, Jeffrey V., 2007. "Aiming the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” at ecological theory," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 356-362.
    7. Marc-Oliver Gewaltig & Robert Cannon, 2014. "Current Practice in Software Development for Computational Neuroscience and How to Improve It," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, January.
    8. Smajgl, Alex & House, Alan P.N. & Butler, James R.A., 2011. "Implications of ecological data constraints for integrated policy and livelihoods modelling: An example from East Kalimantan, Indonesia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(3), pages 888-896.
    9. Go Ashida & Daniel J Tollin & Jutta Kretzberg, 2017. "Physiological models of the lateral superior olive," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-50, December.
    10. Ives, M.C. & Scandol, J.P. & Greenville, J., 2013. "A bio-economic management strategy evaluation for a multi-species, multi-fleet fishery facing a world of uncertainty," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 256(C), pages 69-84.
    11. Conner, Mary M. & Ebinger, Michael R. & Knowlton, Frederick F., 2008. "Evaluating coyote management strategies using a spatially explicit, individual-based, socially structured population model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 234-247.
    12. Igor Lugo & Gustavo Martínez-Mekler, 2022. "Theoretical study of the effect of ports in the formation of city systems," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Bartsev, Sergey I. & Degermendzhi, Andrey G. & Erokhin, Dmitry V., 2008. "Principle of the worst scenario in the modelling past and future of biosphere dynamics," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 160-171.
    14. Saldaña, A. & Ibáñez, J.J., 2007. "Pedodiversity, connectance and spatial variability of soil properties, what is the relationship?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 208(2), pages 342-352.
    15. Lin, Jian-Hao & Quan, Yu-Juan & Han, Bo-Ping, 2024. "MetaIBM: A Python-based library for individual-based modelling of eco-evolutionary dynamics in spatial-explicit metacommunities," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 492(C).
    16. Luedeling, Eike & Smethurst, Philip J. & Baudron, Frédéric & Bayala, Jules & Huth, Neil I. & van Noordwijk, Meine & Ong, Chin K. & Mulia, Rachmat & Lusiana, Betha & Muthuri, Catherine & Sinclair, Ferg, 2016. "Field-scale modeling of tree–crop interactions: Challenges and development needs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 51-69.
    17. Liliana Perez & Suzana Dragicevic & Jonathan Gaudreau, 2019. "A geospatial agent-based model of the spatial urban dynamics of immigrant population: A study of the island of Montreal, Canada," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-23, July.
    18. Augusiak, Jacqueline & Van den Brink, Paul J. & Grimm, Volker, 2014. "Merging validation and evaluation of ecological models to ‘evaludation’: A review of terminology and a practical approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 280(C), pages 117-128.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1000456. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.