Re: matlab to Octave conversion

[MICHAEL FORREST]

The model is from this paper. The author sent it to me to play around with. 
The model is for Figure 8 (a) of the paper. It is all pretty complex and I 
am looking into it - because I'm very interested in purkinje bistability. Do 
you think that the model is flawed? Thanks so much for taking the time with 
me. I am so grateful.

Bistability of cerebellar Purkinje cells modulated by sensory stimulation
Yonatan Loewenstein1, 2, 3, 6, Séverine Mahon4, 6, Paul Chadderton4, Kazuo 
Kitamura4, Haim Sompolinsky2, 5, Yosef Yarom1, 2 & Michael Häusser4

PDF of paper and supplementry information is available at the authors 
website:
http://hebb.mit.edu/people/yonatan/papers/loewenstein_2005.pdf
http://hebb.mit.edu/people/yonatan/papers/



> From: "" <address@hidden>
> To: MICHAEL FORREST <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: matlab to Octave conversion
> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:16:18 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: from smtpout1.cns.ohiou.edu ([132.235.51.146]) by 
> bay0-mc12-f16.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Tue, 
> 13 Jun 2006 21:17:08 -0700
> Received: from oak.cats.ohiou.edu ([132.235.8.44])  by 
> smtpout1.cns.ohiou.edu with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2006 00:17:06 -0400
> Received: from 71.66.233.154 by pm6 for 0s (PureMessage); Wed Jun 14 
> 00:16:19 2006
> Received: from cpe-71-66-233-154.columbus.res.rr.com 
> (cpe-71-66-233-154.columbus.res.rr.com [71.66.233.154])(authenticated 
> bits=0)by oak.cats.ohiou.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 
> k5E4GIG72499882(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 
> verify=NOT);Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:16:19 -0400 (EDT)
> X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3660MmjhEvYg2f34OAemlKtU9j2Z7TuGo=
> References: <address@hidden>
> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) X-PMX-Version: 4.7.0.111621, 
> Antispam-Engine: 2.0.2.0, Antispam-Data: 2006.6.13.203432 (pm6)
> X-PMX-Information: http://www.cns.ohiou.edu/email/filtering/
> X-PMX-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, 
> __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 
> 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0'
> Return-Path: address@hidden
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2006 04:17:08.0492 (UTC) 
> FILETIME=[66C14CC0:01C68F69]
>
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 22:03 +0100, MICHAEL FORREST wrote:
> > Is this supposed to be current clamp and voltage clamp?
> > Yes.
>
> I do not believe the code you submitted was correct in voltage clamp
> mode. Voltage should be fixed to the command voltage in voltage clamp
> mode and I do not believe that was the case with the code you submitted.
>
> In current clamp one injects a command current and measures cell
> voltage. In voltage clamp the cell voltage is driven by the electrode
> and the driving current is interpreted as the membrane current. The code
> you submitted does not do the sorts of things one expects for the two
> scenarios.
>
> PLEASE, e-mail me if this does not make sense.


> << signature.asc >>