Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEl Masri, Ghinwa
dc.contributor.authorAli, Asma
dc.contributor.authorAbuwatfa, Waad Hussein
dc.contributor.authorMortula, Maruf
dc.contributor.authorHusseini, Ghaleb
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-31T10:22:56Z
dc.date.available2023-01-31T10:22:56Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationMasri, G.E.; Ali, A.; Abuwatfa, W.H.; Mortula, M.; Husseini, G.A. A Comparative Analysis of Numerical Methods for Solving the Leaky Fire and Integrate Model. Mathematics 2023, 11, 714. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11030714en_US
dc.identifier.issn2227-7390
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11073/25124
dc.description.abstractThe human nervous system is one of the most complex systems of the human body. Understanding its behavior is crucial in drug discovery and developing medical devices. One approach to understanding such a system is to model its most basic unit, neurons. The leaky integrate and fire (LIF) method models the neurons’ response to a stimulus. Given the fact that the model’s equation is a linear ordinary differential equation, the purpose of this research is to compare which numerical analysis method gives the best results for the simplified version of this model. Adams predictor and corrector (AB4-AM4) and Heun’s methods were then used to solve the equation. In addition, this study further researches the effects of different current input models on the LIF’s voltage output. In terms of the computational time, Heun’s method was 0.01191 s on average which is much less than that of the AB-AM4 method (0.057138) for a constant DC input. As for the root mean square error, the AB-AM4 method had a much lower value (0.0061) compared to that of Heun’s method (0.3272) for the same constant input. Therefore, our results show that Heun’s method is best suited for the simplified LIF model since it had the lowest computation time of 36 ms, was stable over a larger range, and had an accuracy of 72% for the varying sinusoidal current input model.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipAmerican University of Sharjahen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipAlJalila Foundationen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipAl Qasimi Foundationen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipPatient’s Friends Committee of Sharjahen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipBiosciences and Bioengineering Research Instituteen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipGCC Co-Fund Programen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipTakamul programen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipTechnology Innovation Pioneer (TIP) Healthcare Awardsen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSheikh Hamdan Award for Medical Sciencesen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipFriends of Cancer Patients (FoCP)en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipDana Gas Endowed Chair for Chemical Engineeringen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherMDPIen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/math11030714en_US
dc.subjectComputational neuroscienceen_US
dc.subjectNumerical analysisen_US
dc.subjectNeuroinformaticsen_US
dc.subjectLeaky integrate and fire (LIF)en_US
dc.subjectAdams predictor and correctoren_US
dc.subjectHeun’s methoden_US
dc.titleA Comparative Analysis of Numerical Methods for Solving the Leaky Fire and Integrate Modelen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.typePeer-Revieweden_US
dc.typePublished versionen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/math11030714


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record