ArticlePNAS nexus2026
Two-factor synaptic plasticity enables memory consolidation during neuronal burst firing.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Burst firing creates an attractor in synaptic weight dynamics.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How can brain circuits remain plastic enough to encode new information while still stabilizing synaptic changes that support long-term memory? Many circuits switch between tonic spiking, which encodes external inputs, and burst firing, which is generated collectively; yet how these firing-state changes interact with synaptic plasticity to support consolidation remains unclear. Here, we ask whether burst epochs can provide a minimal, mechanistically interpretable route to stabilizing memories encoded during tonic firing. We introduce a two-factor synaptic plasticity rule in a conductance-based spiking network that switches robustly between tonic and burst regimes. The effective synaptic strength is expressed as the product of two factors: a primary, flexible factor updated by a Hebbian mechanism, and a secondary factor that captures stabilizing processes. The secondary factor is adjusted according to the rate of change of the primary factor. In a pattern recognition case study, the network encodes new inputs during tonic firing and undergoes burst epochs. This two-factor rule stabilizes previously learned patterns, integrates information across samples to support generalization, and improves robustness to noise. Ablation experiments show that these outcomes require a synergy between neural bursting activity and the two-factor plasticity rule: blocking secondary plasticity prevents stable retention, replacing bursts with quiescence leads to fading memories, and replacing bursts with additional tonic firing causes interference and noise sensitivity. Finally, a signal-to-noise ratio analysis across tonic-burst cycles identifies parameter regimes in which bursts either sharpen or weaken synaptic representations, consistent with consolidation or pruning, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.