Standardized README to Markdown format

README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+This is the readme for this model that tries to mimic the VS model illustrated in the papers by Borst and Haag (1996,1997, et al. 1999)
+
+1. Borst A, Haag J (1996) The intrinsic electrophysiological characteristics of fly lobula plate tangential cells: I. Passive membrane properties. *J Comput Neurosci* 3:313-36
+2. Haag J, Vermeulen A, Borst A (1999) The intrinsic electrophysiological characteristics of fly lobula plate tangential cells: III. Visual response properties. *J Comput Neurosci* 7:213-34
+3. Haag J, Borst A (1997) Encoding of visual motion information and reliability in spiking and graded potential neurons. *J Neurosci* 17:4809-19
+
+Executing this model will produce a figure similar to fig 10 from Haag 1997.
+
+![screenshot](./screenshot.jpg)
+
+Created by B. Torben-Nielsen (TENU @ OIST) and Ted Carnevale
+2009-01-20
+
+There are key unresolved differences between the published model and the NEURON implementation.
+
+The published model's damped oscillations occur when the low- to moderate- amplitude depolarizing currents are injected; in the NEURON implementation, they are triggered by low-amplitude hyperpolarizing currents.
+
+The published model responds fairley linearly to a wide range of hyperpolarizing currents; the NEURON implementation shows a quite nonlinear jump to negative membrane potentials when medium to large hyperpolarizing currents are injected.
+
+The published model's resting potential is 0; the resting potential of the NEURON implementation is nonzero and nonuniform. The NEURON implementation's resting potential can be forced to zero everywhere by adjusting e_pas in each compartment so that i_pas cancels out the contributions of local Na and K currents; however, the resulting model's responses to injected depolarizing and hyperpolarizing currents diverge even more from those of the published model.
+
+Moreover, there is still an unresolved issue concerning the time constants. According to Borst, these are not scaled/normalized in figure 8 (f,g) from the 1997 paper. This implies that our time constants are tau_max times too large.
+
+When contacted, Borst was positive about the constructed model. The discrepancies are likely due to (1) the morphology and (2) the distribution of the voltage-gated channels. Recall that (i) the morphology is coming from neuromorpho.org; a curated database in which they "repair" morphologies. A different morphology leads to a different outcome (especially since the tiny branches are close to the axon). (ii) the description of the location of the voltage-gated channels is rather vague. Clearly this may effect the outcome as well. (Qualitatively the results are similar, quantitatively, there are some discrepancies).
+
+---
+
+2025-06-02: Converted README to Markdown.