[WIP]: feat: KD add remaining extracted non-model code #1188
Conversation
hnn_core/cells_default.py
Outdated
| """ | ||
|
|
||
| return zero_val * np.exp(exp_term * x) + offset | ||
| # AES: TODO Should the offset be multiplied by zero_val? This was also changed in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I double-checked that this is indeed what I wanted it to do. The distribution of the Ih that I need this function for in the new model is:
gbar = zero_val * (-0.8696 + 2.087 * np.exp(x/323))
Taken from Hay et al., 2011.
Actually, maybe we shouldn't call it zero_val, but gbar_proximal or something like that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This checks out from the picture you sent me over email, and I've removed my comment drawing attention to it in the latest commit. I agree about changing the name zero_val now, since zero_val now multiplies both of the offset and the exponential. What do you think about gbar_original? I fear proximal could make a novice become confused and think this relates to our proximal/distal inputs language.
I believe this adds the last of the code that is extracted from jonescompneurolab#1168 that is *not* the actual Duecker model itself, but instead code changes that are used by the default model. These functions are not currently tested at all, and I have not added tests for them for similar reasons to jonescompneurolab#1185 (comment) After this, we should be able to make a PR that adds the actual Duecker model itself. However, there will be additional work for that step: we need to update `hnn_io.read_network_configuration` and the equivalent `...write...` such that they support the Duecker model. Continuing the pattern, this is based on top of jonescompneurolab#1187.
asoplata
force-pushed
the
kd/hotzone-slope
branch
from
8e2f743 to
d831bcf
Compare
asoplata
force-pushed
the
kd/hotzone-slope
branch
from
d831bcf to
9e6f2ef
Compare
2 participants
I believe this adds the last of the code that is extracted from #1168 that is not the actual Duecker model itself, but instead code changes that are used by the default model. These functions are not currently tested at all, and I have not added tests for them for similar reasons to #1185 (comment)
After this, we should be able to make a PR that adds the actual Duecker model itself. However, there will be additional work for that step: we need to update
hnn_io.read_network_configurationand the equivalent...write...such that they support the Duecker model.Continuing the pattern, this is based on top of #1187.