Research Papers

Parameter Estimation of the FitzHugh–Nagumo Neuron Model Using Integrals Over Finite Time Periods

[+] Author and Article Information
Antonio Concha

Instituto de Ingeniería,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Coyoacán, D.F 04510, Mexico
e-mail: AConchaS@iingen.unam.mx

Rubén Garrido

Departamento de Control Automático,
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados
del Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
Gustavo A. Madero, D.F 07360, Mexico
e-mail: garrido@ctrl.cinvestav.mx

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND NONLINEAR DYNAMICS. Manuscript received April 8, 2014; final manuscript received September 12, 2014; published online January 21, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Hiroshi Yabuno.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 10(2), 021023 (Mar 01, 2015) (6 pages) Paper No: CND-14-1094; doi: 10.1115/1.4028601 History: Received April 08, 2014; Revised September 12, 2014; Online January 21, 2015

This paper proposes two methodologies for estimating the parameters of the FitzHugh–Nagumo (FHN) neuron model. The identification procedures use only measurements of the membrane potential. The first technique is named the identification method based on integrals and wavelets (IMIW), which combines a parameterization based on integrals over finite time periods and a wavelet denoising technique for removing the measurement noise. The second technique, termed as the identification method based only on integrals (IMOI), does not use any wavelet denoising technique and attenuates the measurement noise by integrating the IMIW parameterization two times more over finite time periods. Both procedures use the least squares algorithm for estimating the FHN parameters. Integrating the FHN model over finite time periods allows eliminating the unmeasurable recovery variable of this model, thus obtaining a parameterization based on integrals of the measurable membrane potential variable. Unlike an identification technique recently published, the proposed methods do not rely on the time derivatives of the membrane potential and are not limited to continuously differentiable input current stimulus. Numerical simulations show that both the IMIW and IMOI have a good and a similar performance, however, the implementation of the latter is simpler than the implementation of the former.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Rabinovich, M., Varona, P., Selverston, A., and Abarbanel, H., 2010, “Dynamical Principles in Neuroscience,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 78(4), pp. 1213–1265. [CrossRef]
Cessac, B., 2010, “A Review of Neural Networks as Dynamical Systems,” Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos, 20(6), pp. 1585–1629. [CrossRef]
Hodgkin, A., and Huxley, A., 1952, “A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve,” J. Physiol., 117(4), pp. 500–544. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
FitzHugh, R., 1961, “Impulses and Physiological States in Models of Nerve Membrane,” Biophys. J., 1, pp. 445–466. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nagumo, J., Arimoto, S., and Yoshizawa, S., 1962, “An Active Pulse Transmission Line Simulating Nerve Axon,” Proc. IRE, 50(10), pp. 2061–2070. [CrossRef]
Morris, C., and Lecar, H., 1981, “Voltage Oscillations in the Barnacle Giant Muscle Fiber,” Biophys. J., 35(1), pp. 193–213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hindmarsh, J., and Rose, R., 1984, “A Model of Neuronal Bursting Using Three Coupled First Order Differential Equations,” Proc. R. Soc. London B, 221(1222), pp. 87–102. [CrossRef]
Tyukin, I., Steur, E., Nijmeijer, H., Fairhurst, D., Song, I., Semyanov, A., and Leeuwen, C., 2010, “State and Parameter Estimation for Canonic Models of Neural Oscillators,” Int. J. Neural Syst., 20(3), pp. 193–207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fairhurst, D., Tyukin, I., Nijmeijer, H., and Leeuwen, C., 2010, “Observers for Canonic Models of Neural Oscillators,” Math. Modell. Nat. Phenom., 5(2), pp. 146–184. [CrossRef]
Moehlis, J., Shea-Brown, E., and Rabitz, H., 2006, “Optimal Inputs for Phase Models of Spiking Neurons,” J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 1(4), pp. 358–367. [CrossRef]
Buhry, L., Saigui, S., Giremus, A., Grivel, E., and Renaud, S., 2008, “Parameter Estimation of the Hodgkin–Huxley Model Using Metaheuristics: Application to Neuromimetic Analog Integrated Circuits,” IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference, Baltimore, MD, Nov. 20–22, pp. 173–176. [CrossRef]
Sun, J., Deng, B., Wei, X., Jia, C., Wang, J., and Zhao, J., 2011, “Parameter Estimation in Hodgkin–Huxley Model With Adaptive Method,” 4th International conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics (BMEI), Shanghai, Oct. 15–17, pp. 1853–1857. [CrossRef]
Deng, B., Wang, J., and Che, Y., 2009, “A Combined Method to Estimate Parameters of Neuron From a Heavily Noise-Corrupted Time Series of Active Potential,” Chaos, 19(1), p. 015105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Julier, S., and Uhlmann, J., 2004, “Unscented Filtering and Nonlinear Estimation,” Proc. IEEE, 92(3), pp. 401–422. [CrossRef]
Tokuda, I., Parlitz, U., Illing, L., Kennel, M., and Abarbanel, H., 2002, “Parameter Estimation for Neuron Models,” Proceedings of the 7th Experimental Chaos Conference, Baltimore, MD, June 30–July 2, pp. 251–256.
Parlitz, U., and Junge, L., 1996, “Synchronization-Based Parameter Estimation From Time Series,” Phys. Rev. E, 54(6), pp. 6253–6259. [CrossRef]
Che, Y., Geng, L., Han, C., Cui, S., and Wang, J., 2012, “Parameter Estimation of the Fitzhugh–Nagumo Model Using Noisy Measurements for Membrane Potential,” Chaos, 22(2), p. 023139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ramsay, J., Hooker, G., Campbell, D., and Cao, J., 2007, “Parameter Estimation for Differential Equations: A Generalized Smoothing Approach,” J. R. Stat. Soc.: Ser. B, 69(5), pp. 741–796. [CrossRef]
Liang, H., and Wu, H., 2008, “Parameter Estimation for Differential Equation Models Using a Framework of Measurement Error in Regression Models,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 103(484), pp. 1570–1583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Faghih, R., Savla, K., Dahleh, M., and Brown, E., 2012, “Broad Range of Neural Dynamics From a Time Varying Fitzhugh Nagumo Model and Its Spiking Threshold Estimation,” IEEE Trans. Biomedical Eng., 59(3), pp. 816–823. [CrossRef]
Daubechies, I., 1992, Ten Lectures on Wavelets, SIAM, Philadelphia, PA.
Sagara, S., and Zhao, Z., 1990, “Numerical Integration Approach to On-Line Identification of Continuous-Time Systems,” Automatica, 26(1), pp. 63–74. [CrossRef]
Garnier, H., Mensler, M., and Richard, A., 2003, “Continuous-Time Model Identification From Sampled Data: Implementation Issues and Performance Evaluation,” Int. J. Control, 76(13), pp. 1337–1357. [CrossRef]
Marsden, J., 1974, Elementary Classical Analysis, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.
Eitelberg, E., 1988, “Continuous-Time System Representation With Exact Macro-Difference Expressions,” Int. J. Control, 47(5), pp. 1207–1212. [CrossRef]
Ljung, L., 1999, System Identification: Theory for the User, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Isermann, R., and Munchhof, M., 2012, Identification of Dynamic Systems, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Germany.
Donoho, D., 1995, “De-Noising by Soft-Thresholding,” IEEE. Trans. Inf. Theory, 41(3), pp. 613–627. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Bode diagram gain of the filters Gi(s), i = 0, 1, 2. (a) G0(s), (b) G1(s), and (c) G2(s).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Spectrum of x1m. (a) Spectrum of x1m when u = u1, (b) Spectrum of x1m when u = u2.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Signals x1, x1m, and x1w. (a) x1m and (b). x1 versus x1w.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the predicted and nominal signals. (a) x1 versus x∧1 and (b) x2 versus x∧2.




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In