Neuromodulation and homeostasis: complementary mechanisms for robust neural function

Arthur Fyon, Guillaume Drion

correctmedium confidence

Category: Not specified
Journal tier: Strong Field
Processed: Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
arXiv Links: Abstract ↗PDF ↗

Audit review

The paper gives a qualitative, simulation-backed geometric argument: fast controlled neuromodulation keeps trajectories on an activity isocline while slow homeostasis moves along a calcium isocline, so the system stabilizes at their intersection; sharp neuromodulation fails because homeostasis follows its native homogeneous-scaling line and departs from the new activity isocline. The model solution provides a stylized, rigorous 2D fast–slow proof with an explicit Lyapunov function and uniqueness of the intersection under linear calcium readout and a fast projection onto the activity ray. These are consistent but not identical approaches.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} strong field

\textbf{Justification:}

The manuscript effectively unifies controlled neuromodulation with homeostasis via a clear geometric-timescale narrative and demonstrates robustness across degenerate populations using realistic neuron models. Figures compellingly illustrate why sharp neuromodulation fails while controlled neuromodulation succeeds. Minor revisions to sharpen the mathematical underpinnings (existence/uniqueness of the intersection and a minimal fast–slow reduction) and to state the geometric assumptions explicitly would enhance rigor without changing conclusions.