The mechanism of Parkinson oscillation in the cortex: Possible evidence in a feedback model projecting from the globus pallidus to the cortex

Minbo Xu; Bing Hu; Weiting Zhou; Zhizhi Wang; Luyao Zhu; Jiahui Lin; Dingjiang Wang; Minbo Xu; Bing Hu; Weiting Zhou; Zhizhi Wang; Luyao Zhu; Jiahui Lin; Dingjiang Wang

doi:10.3934/mbe.2023281

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

2023, Volume 20, Issue 4: 6517-6550. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023281

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

The mechanism of Parkinson oscillation in the cortex: Possible evidence in a feedback model projecting from the globus pallidus to the cortex

Department of Applied Mathematics, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China

Academic Editor: Addolorata Marasco

Received: 20 September 2022 Revised: 04 January 2023 Accepted: 27 January 2023 Published: 02 February 2023

The origin, location and cause of Parkinson's oscillation are not clear at present. In this paper, we establish a new cortex-basal ganglia model to study the origin mechanism of Parkinson beta oscillation. Unlike many previous models, this model includes two direct inhibitory projections from the globus pallidus external (GPe) segment to the cortex. We first obtain the critical calculation formula of Parkinson's oscillation by using the method of Quasilinear analysis. Different from previous studies, the formula obtained in this paper can include the self-feedback connection of GPe. Then, we use the bifurcation analysis method to systematically explain the influence of some key parameters on the oscillation. We find that the bifurcation principle of different cortical nuclei is different. In general, the increase of the discharge capacity of the nuclei will cause oscillation. In some special cases, the sharp reduction of the discharge rate of the nuclei will also cause oscillation. The direction of bifurcation simulation is consistent with the critical condition curve. Finally, we discuss the characteristics of oscillation amplitude. At the beginning of the oscillation, the amplitude is relatively small; with the evolution of oscillation, the amplitude will gradually strengthen. This is consistent with the experimental phenomenon. In most cases, the amplitude of cortical inhibitory nuclei (CIN) is greater than that of cortical excitatory nuclei (CEX), and the two direct inhibitory projections feedback from GPe can significantly reduce the amplitude gap between them. We calculate the main frequency of the oscillation generated in this model, which basically falls between 13 and 30 Hz, belonging to the typical beta frequency band oscillation. Some new results obtained in this paper can help to better understand the origin mechanism of Parkinson's disease and have guiding significance for the development of experiments.

Keywords:

Citation: Minbo Xu, Bing Hu, Weiting Zhou, Zhizhi Wang, Luyao Zhu, Jiahui Lin, Dingjiang Wang. The mechanism of Parkinson oscillation in the cortex: Possible evidence in a feedback model projecting from the globus pallidus to the cortex[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(4): 6517-6550. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023281

Related Papers:

[1]	Anil Chavada, Nimisha Pathak . Transmission dynamics of breast cancer through Caputo Fabrizio fractional derivative operator with real data. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(1): 119-132. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024011
[2]	Erick Manuel Delgado Moya, Diego Samuel Rodrigues . Fractional order modeling for injectable and oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2023, 3(2): 139-151. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2023013
[3]	C. Kavitha, A. Gowrisankar . Fractional integral approach on nonlinear fractal function and its application. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(3): 230-245. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024019
[4]	Chunyu Tian, Lei Sun . Partitioning planar graphs with girth at least $9$ into an edgeless graph and a graph with bounded size components. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2021, 1(3): 136-144. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2021012
[5]	Zhen Lin . On the sum of powers of the $A_{\alpha}$ -eigenvalues of graphs. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2022, 2(2): 55-64. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2022007
[6]	Jiaming Dong, Huilan Li . Hopf algebra of labeled simple graphs arising from super-shuffle product. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(1): 32-43. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024004
[7]	Qian Lin, Yan Zhu . Unicyclic graphs with extremal exponential Randić index. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2021, 1(3): 164-171. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2021015
[8]	Zhen Lin, Ting Zhou . Degree-weighted Wiener index of a graph. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(1): 9-16. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024002
[9]	Ihtisham Ul Haq, Nigar Ali, Shabir Ahmad . A fractional mathematical model for COVID-19 outbreak transmission dynamics with the impact of isolation and social distancing. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2022, 2(4): 228-242. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2022022
[10]	Yunhao Chu, Yansheng Liu . Approximate controllability for a class of fractional semilinear system with instantaneous and non-instantaneous impulses. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(3): 273-285. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024022

Abstract

1. Introduction

In various fields of science, nonlinear evolution equations practically model many natural, biological and engineering processes. For example, PDEs are very popular and are used in physics to study traveling wave solutions. They have played a crucial role in illustrating the nature of nonlinear problems. PDEs are collected to control the diffusion of chemical reactions. In biology, they play a fundamental role in describing various phenomena, such as population growth. In addition, natural phenomena such as fluid dynamics, plasma physics, optics and optical fibers, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, ocean waves, and others are studied using PDEs. The qualitative and quantitative characteristics of these phenomena can be identified from the behaviors and shapes of their solutions. Therefore, finding the analytic solutions to such phenomena is a fundamental topic in mathematics. Scientists have developed sparse fundamental approaches to find analytic solutions for nonlinear PDEs. Among these techniques, I present integration methods from ^[1] and ^[2], the modified F-expansion and Generalized Algebraic methods, respectively. Bekir and Unsal ^[3] proposed the first integral method to find the analytical solution of nonlinear equations. Kumar, Seadawy and Joardar ^[4] used the improved Kudryashov technique to extract fractional differential equations. Adomian ^[5] proposed the Adomian decomposition technique to find the solution of frontier problems of physics. ^[6] uses an exploratory method to find explicit solutions of non-linear PDEs. Many different methods of solving equations arising from natural phenomena and some of their analytic solutions, such as dark and light solitons, non-local rogue waves, an occasional wave and mixed soliton solutions, are exhibited and can be found in ^{[7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]}.

The Novikov-Veselov (NV) system ^[41,42] is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_t& +\alpha \Gamma_{xxy}+\beta \Phi_{xyy}+\gamma \Gamma_y \Phi+\gamma \left(\dfrac{\Psi^2}{2}\right)_y+\lambda\, \Gamma\, \Phi_x+\lambda\, \left(\dfrac{\Psi^2}{2}\right)_x = 0, \\ \Gamma_y& = \Psi_x, \\ \Psi_y& = \Phi_x, \\ \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(1.1)

where $\alpha, \, \beta, \, \gamma$ and $\lambda$ are constants. Barman ^[42] declared that Eq (1.1) is involved to represent tidal and tsunami waves, electro-magnetic waves in communication cables and magneto-sound and ion waves in plasma. In ^[42], the generalized Kudryashov method was utilized to have traveling wave solutions for Eq (1.1). According to Croke ^[43], the Novikov-Veselov system is generalized from the KdV equations which were examined by Novikov and Veselov. Croke ^[43] used several approaches, (the extended mapping, the Hirota and the extended tanh-function approaches) in the proposed system to achieve numerous soliton solutions, such as breathers, and constrained analytic solutions. Boiti, Leon, and Manna ^[44] applied the inverse dispersion technique to solve (1.1) for a particular type of initial value. Numerical solutions and a study of the stability of solutions for the proposed equation were presented by Kazeykina and Klein ^[45]. The Nizhnik-Novikov-Veselov system for two dimensions was also solved using the Kansa technique to find the numerical results ^[46]. To the best of my knowledge, the stability and error analysis of the numerical scheme presented here has not yet been discussed for system (1.1). Therefore, this has motivated me enormously to do so. The primary purpose is to obtain multiple analytic solutions to system (1.1) by using both the modified F-expansion and Generalized Algebraic methods. In connection with the numerical solution, the method of finite differences is utilized to achieve numerical results for the studied system. I graphically and analytically compare the traveling wave solutions and numerical results. Undoubtedly, the presented results strongly contribute to describing physical problems in practice.

The outline of this article is provided in this paragraph. Section 2 summarizes the employed methods. All the analytic solutions are extracted in Section 3. The shooting and BVP results for the proposed system are presented in Section 4. In addition, I examine the numerical solution of the system (1.1) in Section 5. Sections 6 and 7 study the stability and error analysis of the numerical scheme, respectively. Section 8 presents the results and discussion.

2. Summary of proposed methods

Considering the development equation with physical fields $\Psi(x, y, t)$ , $\Phi(x, y, t)$ and $\Gamma(x, y, t)$ in the variables $x,$ $y$ and $t$ is given in the following form:

$\begin{equation} Q_1(\Psi, \Psi_t, \Psi_x, \Psi_y, \Gamma, \Gamma_y, \Gamma_{xxy}, \Phi, \Phi_{xyy}, \Phi_{x}, \dots) = 0. \end{equation}$

(2.1)

Step 1. We extract the traveling-wave solutions of System (1.1) that are formed as follows:

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Phi(x, y, t) = &\phi(\eta) , &&\qquad&\eta = x+y-wt, \\ \Psi(x, y, t) = &\psi(\eta), \\ \Gamma(x, y, t) = &\Theta(\eta), \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where $w$ is the wave speed.

Step 2. The nonlinear evolution (2.1) is reduced to the following ODE:

$\begin{equation} Q_2(\psi, \psi_\eta, \Theta, \Theta_\eta, \Theta_{\eta\eta\eta}, \phi, \phi_{\eta\eta\eta}, \phi_{\eta}, \dots) = 0, \end{equation}$

(2.3)

where $Q_2$ is a polynomial in $\psi(\eta), \; \phi(\eta),$ $\Theta(\eta)$ and their total derivatives.

2.1. The modified F-expansion method

According to the modified F-expansion method, the solutions of (2.3) are given by the form

$\begin{equation} \psi(\eta) = \rho_0+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N} \left( \rho_{k} F(\eta)^{k}+\dfrac{ q_{k}}{F(\eta)^{k}} \right) , \end{equation}$

(2.4)

and $F(\eta)$ is a solution of the following differential equation:

$\begin{equation} F^{\prime}(\eta) = \mu_0+\mu_1 F(\eta)+\mu_2 F(\eta)^{2}, \end{equation}$

(2.5)

where $\mu_0$ , $\mu_1$ , $\mu_2$ , are given in ^[1], and $\rho_k$ , $q_k$ are to be determined later.

Table 1. The relations among

$\mu_0$ ,

$\mu_1$ ,

$\mu_2$ and the function

$F(\eta)$ .

$\mu_0$	$\mu_{1}$	$\mu_{2}$	$F(\eta)$
$\mu_0=0,$	$\mu_1=1,$	$\mu_2=-1,$	$F(\eta)=\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{1}{2} \tanh \left(\dfrac{1}{2} \eta\right).$
$\mu_0=0,$	$\mu_1=-1,$	$\mu_2=1,$	$F(\eta)=\dfrac{1}{2}-\dfrac{1}{2} \operatorname{coth}\left(\dfrac{1}{2} \eta\right).$
$\mu_0=\dfrac{1}{2},$	$\mu_1=0,$	$\mu_2=\dfrac{-1}{2},$	$F(\eta)=\operatorname{coth}(\eta) \pm \operatorname{csch}(\eta),$ $\tanh (\eta) \pm \operatorname{sech}(\eta).$
$\mu_0=1,$	$\mu_1=0,$	$\mu_2=-1,$	$F(\eta)=\tanh (\eta),$ $\operatorname{coth}(\eta).$
$\mu_0=\dfrac{1}{2},$	$\mu_1=0,$	$\mu_2=\dfrac{1}{2},$	$F(\eta)=\sec (\eta)+\tan (\eta),$ $\csc (\eta)-\cot (\eta).$
$\mu_0=\dfrac{1}{2},$	$\mu_1=0,$	$\mu_2=\dfrac{1}{2},$	$F(\eta)=\sec (\eta)-\tan (\eta),$ $\csc (\eta)+\cot (\eta).$
$\mu_0=\pm1,$	$\mu_1=0,$	$\mu_2=\pm1,$	$F(\eta)=\tan (\eta),$ $\cot (\eta).$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

2.2. The generalized algebraic method

According to the generalized direct algebraic method, the solutions of (2.3) are given by

$\begin{equation} \psi(\eta) = \nu_0+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N} \left( \nu_{k} G(\eta)^{k} +\dfrac{ r_{k}}{G(\eta) ^{k}} \right) , \end{equation}$

(2.6)

and $G(\eta)$ is a solution of the following differential equation:

$\begin{equation} G^{\prime}(\eta) = \varepsilon \sqrt{\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{4} \delta_{k} G^{k}(\eta)}, \end{equation}$

(2.7)

where $\nu_k,$ and $r_k$ are to be determined, and $N$ is an integer number obtained by the highest degree of the nonlinear terms and the highest order of the derivatives. $\varepsilon$ is user-specified, usually taken with $\varepsilon = \pm1$ , and $\delta_k$ , $k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,$ are given in Table 2 ^[2].

Table 2. The relations among

$\delta_k$ ,

$k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,$ and the function

$G(\eta)$ .

$\delta_{0}$	$\delta_{1}$	$\delta_{2}$	$\delta_{3}$	$\delta_{4}$	$G(\eta)$
$\delta_{0}=0$ ,	$\delta_{1}=0$ ,	$\delta_{2} > 0$ ,	$\delta_{3}=0$ ,	$\delta_{4} < 0$ ,	$G(\eta)= \varepsilon$ $\sqrt{-\dfrac{\delta_{2}}{\delta_{4}}} \operatorname{sech}\left(\sqrt{\delta_{2}} \eta\right)$ .
$\delta_{0}=\dfrac{\delta_{2}^{2}}{4 c 4}$ ,	$\delta_{1}=0$ ,	$\delta_{2} < 0$ ,	$\delta_{3}=0$ ,	$\delta_{4} > 0$ ,	$G(\eta)=\varepsilon \sqrt{-\dfrac{\delta_{2}}{2 \delta_{4}}} \tanh \left(\sqrt{-\dfrac{\delta_{2}}{2}} \eta\right)$ .
$\delta_{0}=0$ ,	$\delta_{1}=0$ ,	$\delta_{2} < 0$ ,	$\delta_{3}=0$ ,	$\delta_{4} > 0$ ,	$G(\eta)=\varepsilon$ $\sqrt{-\dfrac{\delta_{2}}{\delta_{4}}}$ $\sec$ $\left(\sqrt{-\delta_{2}} \eta\right)$ .
$\delta_{0}=\dfrac{\delta_{2}^{2}}{4 \delta_{4}},$	$\delta_{1}=0$ ,	$\delta_{2} > 0$ ,	$\delta_{3}=0,$	$\delta_{4} > 0,$	$G(\eta)=\varepsilon$ $\sqrt{\dfrac{\delta_{2}}{2 \delta_{4}}} \tan \left(\sqrt{\dfrac{\delta_{2}}{2}} \eta\right)$ .
$\delta_{0}=0,$	$\delta_{1}=0,$	$\delta_{2}=0,$	$\delta_{3}=0,$	$\delta_{4} > 0,$	$G(\eta)=-\dfrac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\delta_{4}} \eta}$ .
$\delta_{0}=0,$	$\delta_{1}=0,$	$\delta_{2} > 0,$	$\delta_{3}\neq 0,$	$\delta_{4}=0,$	$G(\eta)=-\dfrac{\delta_{2}}{\delta_{3}}. \operatorname{sech}^{2}\left(\dfrac{\sqrt{\delta_{2}}}{2} \eta\right)$ .

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

3. Methodology

Consider the Novikov-Veselov (NV) system

(3.1)

a system of PDEs in the unknown functions $\Psi = \Psi(x, y, t), \; \Phi = \Phi(x, y, t)$ , $\Gamma = \Gamma(x, y, t)$ and their partial derivatives. I plug the transformations

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Phi(x, y, t) = &\phi(\eta) , &&\qquad&\eta = x+y-wt, \\ \Psi(x, y, t) = &\psi(\eta), \\ \Gamma(x, y, t) = &\Theta(\eta), \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.2)

into Eq (3.1) to reduce it to a system of ODEs given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} -w\; \psi_\eta& +\alpha \Theta_{\eta\eta\eta}+\beta \phi_{\eta\eta\eta}+\gamma \Theta_\eta \phi+\gamma \left(\dfrac{\psi^2}{2}\right)_\eta+\lambda\, \Theta\, \phi_\eta+\lambda\, \left(\dfrac{\psi^2}{2}\right)_\eta = 0, \\ \Theta_\eta& = \psi_\eta, \\ \psi_\eta& = \phi_\eta.\\ \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.3)

Integrating $\Theta_\eta = \psi_\eta$ and $\phi_\eta = \psi_\eta$ yields

$\begin{equation} \Theta = \psi, \qquad \text{and } \qquad \phi = \psi. \end{equation}$

(3.4)

Substituting (3.4) into the first equation of (3.3) and integrating once with respect to $\eta$ yields

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} -w\; \psi& +\left( \alpha +\beta\right) \psi_{\eta\eta}+\left( \gamma+\lambda\right) \psi^2 = 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.5)

Balancing $\psi_{\eta\eta}$ with $\psi^2$ in (3.5) calculates the value of $N = 2.$

3.1. Application of modified F-expansion method

According to the modified F-expansion method with $N = 2$ , the solutions of (3.5) are

$\begin{equation} \psi(\eta) = \rho_0+ \rho_{1} F(\eta)+\dfrac{ q_{1}}{F(\eta)}+ \rho_{2} F(\eta)^{2}+\dfrac{ q_{2}}{F(\eta)^{2}} , \end{equation}$

(3.6)

and $F(\eta)$ is a solution of the following differential equation:

$\begin{equation} F^{\prime}(\eta) = \mu_0+\mu_1 F(\eta)+\mu_2 F(\eta)^{2}, \end{equation}$

(3.7)

where $\mu_0$ , $\mu_1$ , $\mu_2$ are given in Table 1. To explore the analytic solutions to (3.5), I ought to follow the subsequent steps.

$\textbf{Step 1.}$ Placing (3.6) along with (3.7) into Eq (3.5) and gathering the coefficients of $F(\eta)^j$ , $j$ = $-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,$ to zeros gives a system of equations for $\rho_0, \; \rho_k, \; q_k$ , $k = 1, 2.$

$\textbf{Step 2.}$ Solve the resulting system using mathematical software: for example, Mathematica or Maple.

$\textbf{Step 3.}$ Choosing the values of $\mu_0, \; \mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ and the function $F(\eta)$ from and substituting them along with $\rho_0, \; \rho_k, \; q_k$ , $k = 1, 2,$ in (3.6) produces a set of trigonometric function and rational solutions to (3.5).

Applying the above steps, I determine the values of $\rho_0, \; \rho_1, \; \rho_2, \; q_1, \; q_2$ and $w$ as follows:

$(1).$ When $\mu_0 = 0,$ $\mu_1 = 1$ and $\mu_2 = -1$ , I have two cases.

$\textbf{Case 1.}$

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \rho_0 = &0, && \rho_1 = \dfrac{6 (\alpha +\beta)}{\gamma +\lambda}, &\rho_2 = & -\dfrac{6 (\alpha +\beta)}{\gamma + \lambda}, & q_1 = q_2 = 0, \quad \text{and}\quad w = \alpha+\beta. \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.8)

The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_1(x, y, t) = \dfrac{ 3(\alpha+\beta)}{2(\gamma+\lambda)} \operatorname{sech}^2\left(\dfrac{1}{2} \left( x+y-(\alpha +\beta) t+x0\right) \right). \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.9)

$\textbf{Case 2.}$

$\rho_0 = -\dfrac{\alpha+\beta}{\gamma+\lambda}, \rho_1 = \dfrac{6 (\alpha +\beta)}{\gamma +\lambda}, \\ \rho_2 = -\dfrac{6 (\alpha +\beta)}{\gamma + \lambda}, q_1 = q_2 = 0, \quad \text{and}\quad w = -\left( \alpha+\beta\right) .$

(3.10)

The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_2(x, y, t) = -\dfrac{ (\alpha+\beta)}{2(\gamma+\lambda)} \left( 3 \tanh ^2\left(\dfrac{1}{2} (x+y+t (\alpha+\beta))+x0\right)-1 \right) . \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.11)

presents the time evolution of the analytic solutions $(a)$ $\Psi_1$ and $(b)$ $\Psi_2$ with $t = 0, 10, 20$ . The parameter values are $x0 = -20, \ \alpha = 0.50, \beta = 0.6, \ \gamma = -1.5,$ and $\lambda = 1.$ presents the wave behavior by changing a certain parameter value and fixing the values of the others. presents the behavior of $\Psi_1$ when I change the values of (a) $\alpha$ or $\beta$ and (b) $\gamma$ or $\lambda$ . In it can also be seen that the value of $\alpha$ or $\beta$ affects the direction and amplitude of the wave, such that a negative value always makes the wave negative, its amplitude decreases when $\alpha, \, \beta \to 0$ , and its amplitude increases when $\alpha, \, \beta \to \infty.$ In the value of $\gamma$ or $\lambda$ affects the direction and amplitude of the wave, such that a negative value always makes the wave negative, and its amplitude decreases when the value of $\gamma$ or $\lambda$ increases. In and present the wave behavior of $\Psi_2.$

Figure 1. Time evolution of the analytic solutions

$(a)$

$\Psi_1$ and

$(b)$

$\Psi_2$ with

$t = 0, 10, 20$ . The parameter are given by

$x0 = -20, \ \alpha = 0.50, \beta = 0.6, \ \gamma = -1.5,$ and

$\lambda = 1$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 2. This figure present the wave behavior when changing a certain parameter value and fixing the values of the others.

$(a)$ presents the behavior when I change the value of

$\alpha$ or

$\beta,$ and

$(b)$ presents when I change the value of

$\gamma$ or

$\lambda$ for the solution

$\Psi_1.$

$(c)$ and

$(d)$ are for

$\Psi_2$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

$(2).$ When $\mu_0 = 0,$ $\mu_1 = -1,$ and $\mu_2 = 1$ , I have two cases.

$\textbf{Case 3.}$ The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_3(x, y, t) = -\dfrac{ 3(\alpha+\beta)}{2(\gamma+\lambda)} \operatorname{csch}^2\left(\dfrac{1}{2} \left( x+y-(\alpha +\beta) t\right) \right). \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.12)

$\textbf{Case 4.}$ The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_4(x, y, t) = -\dfrac{ (\alpha+\beta)}{2(\gamma+\lambda)} \left( 3 \coth ^2\left(\dfrac{1}{2} (x+y+t (\alpha+\beta))\right)-1 \right) . \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.13)

$(3).$ When $\mu_0 = 1,$ $\mu_1 = 0,$ and $\mu_2 = -1$ , I have

$\textbf{Case 5.}$ The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_5(x, y, t) = -\dfrac{8 (\alpha+\beta) }{\gamma+\lambda}(\cosh (4 (16 t (\alpha+\beta)+x+y))+2) \operatorname{csch}^2(2 (16 t (\alpha+\beta)+x+y)). \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.14)

$(4).$ When $\mu_0 = \pm 1,$ $\mu_1 = 0,$ and $\mu_2 = \pm 1$ , I have one case.

$\textbf{Case 6.}$ The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_6(x, y, t) = -\dfrac{24 (\alpha+\beta) }{\gamma+\lambda}\csc ^2(2 (16 t (\alpha+\beta)+x+y)) . \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.15)

3.2. Application of the generalized algebraic method

According to the generalized algebraic method, the solutions of (3.5) are given by the form

$\begin{equation} \psi(\eta) = \nu_0+ \nu_{1} G(\eta)+ \nu_{2} G(\eta)^{2}+\dfrac{ r_{1}}{G(\eta)}+\dfrac{ r_{2}}{G(\eta)^{2}}, \end{equation}$

(3.16)

where $\nu_k$ , $r_k$ are to be determined later. $G(\eta)$ is a solution of the following differential equation:

$\begin{equation} G^{\prime}(\eta) = \varepsilon \sqrt{\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{4} \delta_{k} G^{k}(\eta)}, \end{equation}$

(3.17)

where $\delta_k$ , $k = 0, 1, 3, 4$ , are given in . In all the cases mentioned above and the subsequent solutions, I used the mathematical software Mathematica to find the values of the constants $\nu_0, \, \nu_1, \, \nu_2, \, r_1, \, r_2$ and $w$ . Thus, the analytic solutions to (3.5) using the generalized algebraic method will be presented here with different values of the constants $\delta_k$ , $k = 0, 1, 3, 4$ .

$(5).$ When $\delta_0 = \dfrac{\delta^2_2}{4 \delta_4},$ $\delta_1 = \delta_3 = 0,$ $\delta_2 < 0$ , $\delta_4 > 0$ , and $\varepsilon = \pm1,$

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \nu_0 = &\frac{\pm\sqrt{4 \delta_2^2 \varepsilon^4 \left(\alpha+\beta\right)^2 \left(\gamma+\lambda\right)^2-3 \delta_2 \varepsilon^4 \left(\alpha+\beta\right)^2 \left(\gamma+\lambda\right)^2}-2 \delta_2 \varepsilon^2 \left(\alpha+\beta\right) \left(\gamma+\lambda\right)}{\left(\gamma+\lambda\right)^2}, \\ \nu_2 = &-\frac{6 \delta_4 \varepsilon^2 \left(\alpha+\beta\right)}{\left(\gamma+\lambda\right)}, \\ \nu_1 = &r_1 = r_2 = 0, \quad\varepsilon = \pm1.\\ w = &\pm\frac{2 \sqrt{\left(4 \delta_2^2-3 \delta_2\right) \varepsilon^4 \left(\alpha+\beta\right)^2 \left(\gamma+\lambda\right)^2}}{\left(\gamma+\lambda\right)}. \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.18)

$\textbf{Case 7.}$ The solution is given by

$\Psi_7(x, y, t) = -\frac{1}{{(\gamma+\lambda)^2}}\\ \left( -3 \delta_2 \varepsilon^4 (\alpha+\beta) (\gamma+\lambda) \tanh ^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{-\delta_2} \left(\frac{2 t \sqrt{\delta_2 (4 \delta_2-3) \varepsilon^4 (\alpha+\beta)^2 (\gamma+\lambda)^2}}{\gamma+\lambda}+x+y\right)}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\right.\\ \left.+2 \delta_2 \varepsilon^2 (\alpha+\beta) (\gamma+\lambda)+\sqrt{\delta_2 (4 \delta_2-3) \varepsilon^4 (\alpha+\beta)^2 (\gamma+\lambda)^2}\right) .$

(3.19)

shows the time evolution of the analytic solutions. shows $\Psi_7$ with $t$ = $0:2:6$ . The parameter values are $\delta_2 = -1$ , $\delta_4 = 1,$ $\epsilon = -1,$ $\alpha = 0.50,$ $\beta = 0.6,$ $\gamma = -1.5,$ $\lambda = 1.8$ and $x0 = -10.$ shows $\Psi_8$ with $t = 0:2:8$ . The parameter values are $\delta_2 = 1$ , $\delta_4 = -1,$ $\epsilon = -1,$ $\alpha = 0.50,$ $\beta = 0.6,$ $\gamma = -1.5,$ $\lambda = 1.8$ and $x0 = -10.$ – present the $3D$ time evolution of the analytic solutions $\Psi_2$ (left) and the numerical solutions (right) obtained employing the scheme 5.1 with $t = 5, 15, 25$ , $M_x = 1600,$ $N_y = 100,$ $x = 0\to60$ and $y = 0\to1.$

Figure 3. Time evolution of the analytic solutions.

$(a)$

$\Psi_7$ with

$t = 0:2:6$ . The parameter values are

$\delta_2 = -1$ ,

$\delta_4 = 1,$

$\epsilon = -1,$

$\alpha = 0.50,$

$\beta = 0.6,$

$\gamma = -1.5,$

$\lambda = 1.8$ and

$x0 = -10.$

$(b)$

$\Psi_8$ with

$t = 0:2:8$ . The parameter values are

$\delta_2 = 1$ ,

$\delta_4 = -1,$

$\epsilon = -1,$

$\alpha = 0.50,$

$\beta = 0.6,$

$\gamma = -1.5,$

$\lambda = 1.8$ and

$x0 = -10$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 4. 3D graphs presenting the analytic (left) and the numerical (right) solutions of

$\Psi_2(x, y, t)$ at

$t = 5.$ The figures present the strength of agreement between analytic and numerical solutions.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 5. 3D graphs presenting the analytic (left) and the numerical (right) solutions of

$\Psi_2(x, y, t)$ at

$t = 15.$ The figures present the strength of agreement between analytic and numerical solutions.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 6. 3D graphs presenting the analytic (left) and the numerical (right) solutions of

$\Psi_2(x, y, t)$ at

$t = 25.$ The figures present the strength of agreement between analytic and numerical solutions.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

$(6).$ When $\delta_0 = 0,$ $\delta_1 = \delta_3 = 0,$ $\delta_2 > 0$ , $\delta_4 < 0$ , and $\varepsilon = \pm1,$

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \nu_2 = &-\frac{6 \delta_4 \varepsilon^2 (\alpha+\beta)}{\gamma+\lambda}, \quad \nu_1 = \nu_0 = r_1 = r_2 = 0, \quad w = &4 \delta_2 \varepsilon^2 (\alpha+\beta). \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.20)

$\textbf{Case 8.}$ The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_8(x, y, t) = &\frac{6 \delta_2\epsilon^4 (\alpha+\beta) \operatorname{sech}^2\left(\sqrt{\delta_2} \left(-4 \delta_2\epsilon^2 t (\alpha+\beta)+x+y\right)\right)}{\gamma+\lambda} \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.21)

$(7).$ When $\delta_0 = 0,$ $\delta_1 = \delta_4 = 0,$ $\delta_3\neq0,$ $\delta_2 > 0$ , $\varepsilon = \pm1$

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \text{Set 1.}\, \nu_1 = & -\tfrac{3 \delta_3 \varepsilon^2 \left(\alpha+\beta\right)}{2 \left(\gamma+\lambda\right)}, \, \nu_0 = \nu_2 = r_1 = r_2 = 0, \, w = \delta_2 \varepsilon^2 \left(\alpha+\beta\right). \\ &\\ \text{Set 2.}\, \nu_0 = & -\tfrac{\delta_2 \varepsilon^2 \left(\alpha+\beta\right)}{\left(\gamma+\lambda\right)}, \, \nu_1 = -\tfrac{3 \delta_3 \varepsilon^2 \left(\alpha+\beta\right)}{2 \left(\gamma+\lambda\right)}, \quad\nu_2 = r_1 = r_2 = 0, \, w = -\delta_2 \varepsilon^2 \left(\alpha+\beta\right). \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.22)

$\textbf{Case 9.}$ The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_9(x, y, t) = \frac{3 \delta_2 (\alpha+\beta) \operatorname{sech}^2\left(\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\delta_2} (\delta_2 t (-(\alpha+\beta))+x+y)\right)}{2 (\gamma+\lambda)}. \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.23)

$\textbf{Case 10.}$ The solution is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_{10}(x, y, t) = \frac{3 \delta_2 (\alpha+\beta) \operatorname{sech}^2\left(\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\delta_2} (\delta_2 t (\alpha+\beta)+x+y)\right)}{2 (\gamma+\lambda)}-\frac{\delta_2 (\alpha+\beta)}{\gamma+\lambda}. \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(3.24)

4. Numerical solution

In this section I extract numerical solutions to the resulting ODE system (3.5) using several numerical methods. The purpose of this procedure is to guarantee the accuracy of the analytic solutions. I picked one of the analytic solutions above to be a sample, (3.11). The nonlinear shooting and BVP methods, at $t = 0,$ are used by taking the value of $\psi$ at the right endpoint of the domain $\eta = 0$ with guessing the initial value for $\psi_\eta.$ The new target is to obtain the second boundary condition of $\psi$ at the left endpoint of a particular domain. Once the numerical result is obtained, I compare it with the analytic solution (3.11). The MATLAB solver ODE15s and FSOLVE ^[47] are used to get the numerical solution. The resulting ODE (3.5) is discretized as

$\begin{equation} f(\psi) = 0, \qquad f(\psi_i) = -w\; \psi_i +\dfrac{\alpha +\beta}{\Delta_\eta} \left( \psi_{i+1}-2\psi_i+\psi_{i-1}\right) +\dfrac{ \gamma+\lambda}{2\Delta_\eta} \left( \psi^2_{i+1}-\psi_{i-1}^2\right), \end{equation}$

(4.1)

for the BVP method and

$\begin{equation} \psi_{\eta\eta} = \dfrac{1}{\alpha+\beta}\left( w\psi-\left( \gamma+\lambda\right) \psi^2\right), \end{equation}$

(4.2)

for the shooting method. Figure 7 presents the comparison between the numerical solutions obtained using the above numerical methods and the analytic solution. Figure 7 shows that the solutions are identical to the analytic solution.

Figure 7. Comparing the numerical solutions resulting from the shooting and BVP methods with the analytic solution (3.11) at

$t = 0.$ The parameter values are taken as

$\alpha = 0.50$ ,

$\beta = 0.6$ ,

$\gamma = -1.5, \lambda = 1.8$ , with

$N = 600$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Thus, it is possible to verify the correctness of the analytic solution. I also accept the obtained numerical solution as an initial condition for the numerical scheme in the next section.

5. Numerical scheme on a fixed mesh

In this section, I use the finite-difference method to obtain the numerical results of system (1.1) over the domain $[a, \, b]\times [c, \, d].$ Here, $a, \; b, \; c$ and $d$ represent the endpoints of the rectangular domain in the $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively, and $T_f$ is a certain time. The domain $[a, \, b]\times [c, \, d]$ is split into $(M_x+1)\times (N_y+1)$ mesh points:

$\begin{equation*} \label{} \begin{aligned} x_m = &a+m\, \Delta_x, &&& m = 0, \, 1, \, 2, \, \dots, \, M_x, \\ y_n& = c+n\, \Delta_y, &&& n = 0, \, 1, \, 2, \, \dots, \, N_y, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

where $\Delta_x$ and $\Delta_y$ are the step-sizes of the $x$ and $y$ domains, respectively. The system (1.1) is converted to an ODE system by discretizing the space derivatives while keeping the time derivative continuous. Completing this yields

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &\Psi_t|_{m, n}^k + \dfrac{\alpha}{2\Delta_y \Delta_x^2} \delta_x^2\left( \Gamma^{k+1}_{m, n+1}-\Gamma^{k+1}_{m, n-1}\right) +\dfrac{\beta}{2\Delta_x\Delta_y^2} \delta_y^2\left( \Phi^{k+1}_{m+1, n}-\Phi^{k+1}_{m-1, n}\right)\\ &\qquad \quad- \frac{ \gamma}{4\Delta_y} \left( \left( \Phi^{k+1}_{m, n+1}+\Phi^{k+1}_{m, n} \right) \Gamma^{k+1}_{m, n+1}- \left( \Phi^{k+1}_{m, n}+\Phi^{k+1}_{m, n-1} \right)\Gamma^{k+1}_{m, n-1}\right)\\ &\qquad \quad- \frac{ \lambda}{4\Delta_x} \left( \left( \Gamma^{k+1}_{m+1, n}+\Gamma^{k+1}_{m, n} \right) \Phi^{k+1}_{m+1, n}- \left( \Gamma^{k+1}_{m, n}+\Gamma^{k+1}_{m-1, n} \right)\Phi^{k+1}_{m-1, n}\right)\\ &\qquad \quad+\frac{ \gamma}{4\Delta_y} \left( \left( \Psi^{k+1}_{m, n+1}\right)^2- \left( \Psi^{k+1}_{m, n-1}\right)^2\right) +\frac{ \lambda}{4\Delta_x} \left( \left( \Psi^{k+1}_{m+1, n}\right)^2- \left( \Psi^{k+1}_{m-1, n}\right)^2\right) = 0, \\ &\frac{1}{2\Delta_y}(\Gamma_{m, n+1}^{k+1}-\Gamma_{m, n-1}^{k+1}) = \frac{1}{2\Delta_x}(\Psi_{m+1, n}^{k+1}-\Psi_{m-1, n}^{k+1}), \\ &\frac{1}{2\Delta_y}(\Psi_{m, n+1}^{k+1}-\Psi_{m, n-1}^{k+1}) = \frac{1}{2\Delta_x}(\Phi_{m+1, n}^{k+1}-\Phi_{m-1, n}^{k+1}), \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(5.1)

where

$\begin{aligned} \delta_x^2\Gamma_{m, n}^{k+1} = &\left(\Gamma^{k+1}_{m+1, n}-2 \Gamma^{k+1}_{m, n}+ \Gamma^{k+1}_{m-1, n}\right), \\ \delta_y^2\Phi_{m, n}^{k+1} = &\left(\Phi^{k+1}_{m, n+1}-2 \Phi^{k+1}_{m, n}+ \Phi^{k+1}_{m, n-1}\right), \end{aligned}$

subject to the boundary conditions:

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} \Psi_{x}(a, \, y, \, t) = \Psi_{x}(b, \, y, \, t) = 0, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \forall y\in [c, \, d], \\ \\ \Psi_{y}(x, \, c, \, t) = \Psi_{y}(x, \, d, \, t) = 0, \, \, \, \, \, \forall x\in [a, \, b]. \end{array} \end{equation}$

(5.2)

Equation (5.2) permits us to use fictitious points in estimating the space derivatives at the domain's endpoints. The initial conditions are generated by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_2(x, y, 0) = -\dfrac{ (\alpha+\beta)}{2(\gamma+\lambda)} \left( 3 \tanh ^2\left(\dfrac{1}{2} (x+y+x0\right)-1 \right) , \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(5.3)

where $\alpha, \, \beta, \, \gamma$ and $\lambda$ are user-defined parameters. In all the numerical results shown in this section, the parameter values are fixed as $\alpha = 0.50, \, \beta = 0.6, \, \gamma = -1.50, \, \lambda = 1.80, \, x0 = -45.0$ , $y = 0\to1,$ $x = 0\to60$ and $t = 0\to 25.$ The above system is solved by using an ODE solver in FORTRAN called the DDASPK solver ^[48]. This solver used a backward differentiation formula. Since I do not have the initial conditions for the space derivatives, I approximate the Jacobian matrix of the linearized system by using LU-Factorization. The obtained numerical results are acceptable. This can be observed from the Figures 8 and 9.

Figure 8. Time change for the numerical results while holding

$y = 0.5$ and

$M_x = 1600$ at

$t = 0:5:25.$ The wave at

$t = 25$ illustrates that the numerical and the analytic solutions are quite identical.

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Figure 9. The convergence histories of the scheme with the fixation of both

$y = 0.5$ and

$M_x = 1600$ at

$t = 5$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

6. Stability of the numerical scheme

The von Neumann analysis is used to examine the stability of the scheme (5.1). The von Neumann analysis is occasionally called Fourier analysis and is utilized exclusively when the scheme is linear. Hence, I suppose that the linear version is given by

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_t& +\alpha \Gamma_{xxy}+\beta \Phi_{xyy}+s_0\, \Gamma_y+s_1\, \Psi_y+s_2\, \Phi_x+s_3\, \Psi_x = 0, \\ \Gamma_y& = \Psi_x, \\ \Psi_y& = \Phi_x, \\ \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(6.1)

where $s_0 = \gamma \Phi$ , $s_1 = \gamma \Psi$ , $s_2 = \lambda \Gamma$ , $s_3 = \lambda \Psi$ are constants. Since $\Gamma_y = \Psi_x,$ and $\Psi_y = \Phi_x,$ the first equation of (6.1) is given by

$\begin{equation} \Psi_t +\alpha \Psi_{xxx}+\beta \Psi_{yyy}+ s_0\, \Psi_y +s_1\, \Psi_y+s_2\, \Psi_x+s_3\, \Psi_x = 0, \end{equation}$

(6.2)

where $\alpha, \, \beta, \, \gamma, \, \lambda, \, s_0, \, s_1, \, s_2, \, s_3, \, l_4$ are constants. I set directly

$\begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Psi_{m, n}^k = &\mu^k\, \exp(\iota\, \pi\, \xi_0 \, n\, \Delta_x)\exp(\iota\, \pi\, \xi_1 \, m\, \Delta_y), \quad\\ \end{aligned} \end{equation}$

(6.3)

and also I can have

$\begin{aligned} \Psi_{m, n}^{k+1} = &\mu \, \Psi_{m, n}^k, \quad \Psi_{m+1, n}^{k} = \exp(\iota\, \pi\, \xi_0 \, \Delta_x) \, \Psi_{m, n}^k, \quad \Psi_{m, n+1}^{k} = \exp(\iota\, \pi\, \xi_1 \, \Delta_y) \, \Psi_{m, n}^k, \\ & \qquad\qquad\, \, \, \Psi_{m-1, n}^{k} = \exp(-\iota\, \pi\, \xi_0 \, \Delta_x) \, \Psi_{m, n}^k, \quad \Psi_{m, n-1}^{k} = \exp(-\iota\, \pi\, \xi_1 \, \Delta_y) \, \Psi_{m, n}^k , \\ m = &1, \, 2, \dots, \, N_x-1, \quad \quad n = 1, 2, \dots, \, N_y-1. \end{aligned}$

Substituting (6.3) into (6.2) and doing some operations, I have

$\begin{array}{l} 1 = \mu\left( 1-\iota\Delta_t\left( \frac{\sin(\xi_0\pi \Delta_x)\, }{\Delta_x} \left(\frac{4\, \alpha}{\Delta_x^2}\, \sin^2(\tfrac{\xi_0\pi\, \Delta_x}{2})-s_2-s_3\right)+\frac{ \sin(\xi_1\pi \Delta_y)\, }{\Delta_y} \left(\frac{4\, \beta}{\Delta_y^2}\, \sin^2(\tfrac{\xi_1\pi\, \Delta_y}{2})-s_0-s_1\right)\right)\right). \end{array}$

Hence,

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} \mu = \dfrac{1}{ 1-a\iota}, \end{array} \end{equation}$

(6.4)

where

$a = \Delta_t\left( \frac{\sin(\xi_0\pi \Delta_x)\, }{\Delta_x} \left(\frac{4\, \alpha}{\Delta_x^2}\, \sin^2(\tfrac{\xi_0\pi\, \Delta_x}{2})-s_2-s_3\right)+\frac{ \sin(\xi_1\pi \Delta_y)\, }{\Delta_y} \left(\frac{4\, \beta}{\Delta_y^2}\, \sin^2(\tfrac{\xi_1\pi\, \Delta_y}{2})-s_0-s_1\right)\right).$

Thus,

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} |\mu|^2 = \frac{1}{1+a^2}\leq 1.\\ \, \end{array} \end{equation}$

(6.5)

The stability condition of the von Neumann analysis is fulfilled. Consequently, from Eq (6.5), the scheme is unconditionally stable.

7. Error analysis

To examine the accuracy of the numerical scheme (5.1), I study the truncation error utilizing Taylor expansions. Suppose that the error is

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{l} e^{k+1}_{m, n} = \Psi_{m, n}^{k+1}-\Psi(x_m, y_n, t_{k+1}), \end{array} \end{equation}$

(7.1)

where $\Psi(x_m, y_n, t_{k+1})$ and $\Psi_{m, n}^{k+1}$ are the analytic solution and an approximate solution, respectively. Substituting (7.1) into (5.1) gives

$\begin{equation*} \label{} \begin{aligned} \frac{e^{k+1}_{j, k}-e^{k}_{j, k}}{\Delta_t} = & T^{k+1}_{m, n}- \left( \alpha \frac{1}{2\Delta_x^3 } \delta_x^2\left( e^{k+1}_{m+1, n}-e^{k+1}_{m-1, n}\right) +\beta \frac{1}{2\Delta_y^3 } \delta_y^2\left( e^{k+1}_{m, n+1}-e^{k+1}_{m, n-1}\right)\right.\\ &\left.+ \frac{ s_2+s_3}{2\Delta_x} \left( e^{k+1}_{m+1, n}-e^{k+1}_{m-1, n}\right)+ \frac{ s_0+s_1}{2\Delta_y} \left( e^{k+1}_{m, n+1}-e^{k+1}_{m, n-1}\right)\right), \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

where

$T^{k+1}_{m, n} = \frac{\alpha}{2\Delta_x^3 } \delta_x^2\left( \Psi(x_{m+1}, y_n, t_{k+1})-\Psi(x_{m-1}, y_n, t_{k+1})\right) \\ +\frac{\beta }{2\Delta_y^3 } \delta_y^2\left( \Psi(x_{m}, y_{n+1}, t_{k+1})-\Psi(x_{m}, y_{n-1}, t_{k+1})\right)\\ + \frac{ s_2+s_3}{2\Delta_x} \left( \Psi(x_{m+1}, y_n, t_{k+1})-\Psi(x_{m-1}, y_n, t_{k+1})\right)+\\ \frac{ s_0+s_1}{2\Delta_y} \left( \Psi(x_{m}, y_{n+1}, t_{k+1})-\Psi(x_{m}, y_{n-1}, t_{k+1})\right).$

Hence,

$\begin{equation*} \label{} \begin{aligned} T^{k+1}_{m, n}\leq& \frac{\Delta_t}{2}\frac{\partial^2\Psi(x_{m}, y_{n}, \xi_{k+1})}{\partial t^2} -\frac{\Delta_x^2}{2}\frac{\partial^5\Psi(\zeta_{m}, y_{n}, t_{k+1})}{\partial x^5} -\frac{\Delta_y^2}{2}\frac{\partial^5\Psi(x_{m}, \eta_{n}, t_{k+1})}{\partial x^5}\\ & -\frac{\Delta_y^2}{6}\frac{\partial^3\Psi(x_{m}, \eta_{n}, t_{k+1})}{\partial x^3}-\frac{\Delta_x^2}{6}\frac{\partial^3\Psi(\zeta_{m}, y_{n}, t_{k+1})}{\partial x^3}. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}$

Accordingly, the truncation error of the numerical scheme is

$\begin{equation*} \label{} \begin{array}{l} T^{k+1}_{m, n} = O(\Delta_t, \Delta_x^2, \Delta_y^2). \end{array} \end{equation*}$

8. Results and discussion

I have prosperously employed several analytical methods to extract the traveling wave solutions to the two-dimensional Novikov-Veselov system, confirming the solutions with numerical results obtained using the numerical scheme (5.1). The major highlights of the results are shown in and –, which allow immediate comparison of the analytic solutions with the numerical results. Through these, I can notice that the solutions are identical to a large extent, and the error approaches zero whenever the value of $\Delta_x, \Delta_y\to 0$ . The numerical schemes are unconditionally stable for fixing the parameter values $\alpha = 0.50, \, \beta = 0.6, \, \gamma = -1.50, \, \lambda = 1.80, \, x0 = -45.0$ , $y = 0\to1,$ $x = 0\to60$ and $t = 0\to 25.$

Table 3. The relative error with

$L_2$ norm and CPU at

$t = 20.$ .

$\Delta_x$	The Relative Error	CPU
$0.6000 \qquad\qquad$	$5.600\times 10^{-3}\qquad$	$0.063\times10^{3}\, \text{m} \qquad$
$0.3000$	$2.100\times 10^{-3}$	$0.1524\times10^{3} \, s$
$0.1500$	$6.700\times 10^{-4}$	$0.3564\times10^{3}\, s$
$0.0750$	$2.100\times 10^{-4}$	$0.8892\times10^{3}\, s$
$0.0375$	$6.610\times 10^{-5}$	$1.7424\times10^{3}\, s$
$0.0187$	$2.310\times 10^{-5}$	$4.0230\times10^{3}\, s$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Figure 10. The convergence histories measured utilizing the relative error with

$l_2$ norm as a function of

$\Delta_x$ (see Table 3). Here, I picked a certain value of the variable

$y = 0.5$ at

$t = 20$ and

$x = 0\to60$ .

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

presents the time evolution of the analytic solutions $(a)$ $\Psi_1$ and $(b)$ $\Psi_2$ with $t = 0, 10, 20$ . The parameter values are $x0 = -20, \ \alpha = 0.50, \ \beta = 0.6, \ \gamma = -1.5,$ and $\lambda = 1.$ presents the wave behavior by changing a certain parameter value and fixing the values of the others. presents the behavior of $\Psi_1$ when I change the values of (a) $\alpha$ or $\beta$ and (b) $\gamma$ or $\lambda$ . In it can also be seen that the value of $\alpha$ or $\beta$ affects the direction and amplitude of the wave, such that a negative value always makes the wave negative, its amplitude decreases when $\alpha, \, \beta \to 0$ , and its amplitude increases when $\alpha, \, \beta \to \infty.$ In the value of $\gamma$ or $\lambda$ affects the direction and amplitude of the wave, such that a negative value always makes the wave negative, and its amplitude decreases when the value of $\gamma$ or $\lambda$ increases. In present the wave behavior of $\Psi_2.$ shows the time evolution of the analytic solutions. shows $\Psi_7$ with $t = 0:2:6$ . The parameter values are $\delta_2 = -1$ , $\delta_4 = 1,$ $\epsilon = -1,$ $\alpha = 0.50,$ $\beta = 0.6,$ $\gamma = -1.5,$ $\lambda = 1.8$ and $x0 = -10.$ shows $\Psi_8$ with $t = 0:2:8$ . The parameter values are $\delta_2 = 1$ , $\delta_4 = -1,$ $\epsilon = -1,$ $\alpha = 0.50,$ $\beta = 0.6,$ $\gamma = -1.5,$ $\lambda = 1.8$ and $x0 = -10.$ – present the $3D$ time evolution of the analytic solutions $\Psi_2$ (left) and the numerical solutions (right) obtained employing the scheme 5.1 with $t = 5, 15, 25$ , $M_x = 1600,$ $N_y = 100,$ $x = 0\to60$ and $y = 0\to1.$ These figures provide us with an adequate answer that the numerical and analytic solutions are quite identical. Barman et al. ^[42] accepted several traveling wave solutions for (1.1) as hyperbolic functions. The authors employed other parameters to develop new forms for the accepted solution. They proposed that Eq (1.1) describes tidal and tsunami waves, electromagnetic waves in transmission cables and magneto-sound and ion waves in plasma. In comparison, I have found numerous solutions also as hyperbolic functions. Furthermore, I obtained the numerical solutions to enhance the assurance that the solutions presented here are correct and accurate.

9. Conclusions

I have successfully utilized the generalized algebraic and modified F-expansion methods to acquire the soliton solutions for the two-dimensional Novikov-Veselov system, verifying these solutions with numerical results obtained by employing the numerical scheme (5.1). The major highlights of the results shown in – and , which allow immediate comparison of the analytic solutions with the numerical results. Through these, I can notice that the solutions are identical to a large extent, and the error approaches zero whenever the value of $\Delta_x, \Delta_y\to 0$ . The numerical schemes are unconditionally stable for fixing the parameter values $\alpha = 0.50, \, \beta = 0.6, \, \gamma = -1.50, \, \lambda = 1.80,$ $x0 = -45.0$ , $y = 0\to1,$ $x = 0\to60$ and $t = 0\to 25.$ The Jacobi elliptic functions have effectively deteriorated to hyperbolic functions. The applied numerical schemes have provided reliable numerical solutions when using a small value of $\Delta_x, \Delta_y\to0$ .

Ultimately, I can deduce that the methods used are valuable and applicable to extract soliton solutions for other nonlinear evolutionary systems found in chemistry, engineering, physics and other sciences.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no potential conflict of interest in this article.

References

[1]	E. Wressle, C. Engstrand, A. K. Granérus, Living with Parkinson's disease: elderly patients' and relatives' perspective on daily living, Aust. Occup. Ther. J., 54 (2007), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2006.00610.x doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2006.00610.x
[2]	P. Mahlknecht, A. Gasperi, P. Willeit, S. Kiechl, H. Stockner, J. Willeit, et al., Prodromal Parkinson's disease as defined per MDS research criteria in the general elderly community, Mov. Disord., 31 (2016), 1405–1408. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26674 doi: 10.1002/mds.26674
[3]	M. Politis, K. Wu, S. Molloy, P. G. Bain, K. R. Chaudhuri, P. Piccini, Parkinson's disease symptoms: the patient's perspective, Mov. Disord., 25 (2010), 1646–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23135 doi: 10.1002/mds.23135
[4]	C. Váradi, Clinical features of Parkinson's disease: the evolution of critical symptoms, Biology, 9 (2020), 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9050103 doi: 10.3390/biology9050103
[5]	D. J. Surmeier, Determinants of dopaminergic neuron loss in Parkinson's disease, FEBS J., 285 (2018), 3657–3668. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.14607 doi: 10.1111/febs.14607
[6]	C. Raza, R. Anjum, Parkinson's disease: Mechanisms, translational models and management strategies, Life Sci., 226 (2019), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2019.03.057 doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.03.057
[7]	A. B. Holt, E. Kormann, A. Gulberti, M. Pötter-Nerger, C. G. McNamara, H. Cagnan, et al., Phase-dependent suppression of beta oscillations in Parkinson's disease patients, J. Neurosci., 39 (2019), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1913-18.2018 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1913-18.2018
[8]	A. Singh, R. C. Cole, A. I. Espinoza, D. Brown, J. F. Cavanagh, N. S. Narayanana, Frontal theta and beta oscillations during lower-limb movement in Parkinson's disease, Clin. Neurophysiol., 131 (2020), 694-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.12.399 doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2019.12.399
[9]	M. H. Trager, M. M. Koop, A. Velisar, Z. Blumenfeld, J. S. Nikolau, E. J. Quinn, et al., Subthalamic beta oscillations are attenuated after withdrawal of chronic high frequency neurostimulation in Parkinson's disease, Neurobiol. Dis., 96 (2016), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2016.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2016.08.003
[10]	C. Hammond, H. Bergman, P. Brown, Pathological synchronization in Parkinson's disease: networks, models and treatments, Trends Neurosci., 30 (2007), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2007.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2007.05.004
[11]	Z. Wang, B. Hu, W. Zhou, M. Xu, D. Wang, Hopf bifurcation mechanism analysis in an improved cortex-basal ganglia network with distributed delays: An application to Parkinson's disease, Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 166 (2023), 113022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.113022 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.113022
[12]	B. Hu, X. Diao, H. Guo, et al., The beta oscillation conditions in a simplified basal ganglia network, Cogn Neurodynamics, 13(2019), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-018-9514-0 doi: 10.1007/s11571-018-9514-0
[13]	A. B. Holt, T. I. Netoff, Origins and suppression of oscillations in a computational model of Parkinson's disease, J. Comput. Neurosci., 37 (2014), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-014-0523-7 doi: 10.1007/s10827-014-0523-7
[14]	A. B. Holt, E. Kormann, A. Gulberti, M. Pötter-Nerger, C. G. McNamara, H. Cagnan, et al., Phase-dependent suppression of beta oscillations in Parkinson's disease patients, J. Neurosci., 39 (2019), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1913-18.2018 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1913-18.2018
[15]	L. L. Grado, M. D. Johnson, T. I. Netoff, Bayesian adaptive dual control of deep brain stimulation in a computational model of Parkinson's disease, PLoS Comput. Biol., 14 (2018), e1006606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006606 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006606
[16]	J. E. Fleming, E. Dunn, M. M. Lowery, Simulation of closed-loop deep brain stimulation control schemes for suppression of pathological beta oscillations in Parkinson's disease, Front. Neurosci., 14 (2020), 166. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.00166 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00166
[17]	A. B. Holt, D. Wilson, M. Shinn, J. Moehlis, T. I. Netoff, Phasic burst stimulation: a closed-loop approach to tuning deep brain stimulation parameters for Parkinson's disease, PLoS Comput. Biol., 12 (2016), e1005011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005011 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005011
[18]	K. Kumaravelu, D. T. Brocker, W. M. Grill, A biophysical model of the cortex-basal ganglia-thalamus network in the 6-OHDA lesioned rat model of Parkinson's disease, J. Comput. Neurosci., 40 (2016), 207–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-016-0593-9 doi: 10.1007/s10827-016-0593-9
[19]	A. J. N. Holgado, J. R. Terry, R. Bogacz, Conditions for the generation of beta oscillations in the subthalamic nucleus-globus pallidus network, J. Neurosci., 30 (2010), 12340–12352. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0817-10.2010 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0817-10.2010
[20]	A. Pavlides, S. J. Hogan, R. Bogacz, Improved conditions for the generation of beta oscillations in the subthalamic nucleus-globus pallidus network, Eur. J. Neurosci., 36 (2012), 2229–2239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08105.x doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08105.x
[21]	Gillies, D. Willshaw, Z. Li, Subthalamic-pallidal interactions are critical in determining normal and abnormal functioning of the basal ganglia, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B, 269 (2002), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1817 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1817
[22]	J. E. Rubin, D. Terman, High frequency stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus eliminates pathological thalamic rhythmicity in a computational model, J. Comput. Neurosci., 16 (2004), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JCNS.0000025686.47117.67 doi: 10.1023/B:JCNS.0000025686.47117.67
[23]	D. Terman, J. E. Rubin, A. C. Yew, C. J. Wilson, Activity patterns in a model for the subthalamopallidal network of the basal ganglia, J. Neurosci., 22 (2002), 2963–2976. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-07-02963.2002 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-07-02963.2002
[24]	B. Hu, M. Xu, L. Zhu, J. Lin, Z. Wang, D. Wang, et al., A bidirectional Hopf bifurcation analysis of Parkinson's oscillation in a simplified basal ganglia model, J. Theor. Biol., 536 (2022), 110979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110979 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110979
[25]	S. R. Cole, R. van der Meij, E. J. Peterson, C. de Hemptinne, P. A. Starr, B. Voytek, Nonsinusoidal beta oscillations reflect cortical pathophysiology in Parkinson's disease, J. Neurosci., 37 (2017), 4830–4840. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2208-16.2017 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2208-16.2017
[26]	B. Pollok, V. Krause, W. Martsch, C. Wach, A. Schnitzler, M. Südmeyer, Motor‐cortical oscillations in early stages of Parkinson's disease, J.Physiol., 590 (2012), 3203–3212. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2012.231316 doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2012.231316
[27]	S. J. van Albada, P. A. Robinson, Mean-field modeling of the basal ganglia-thalamocortical system. I: Firing rates in healthy and parkinsonian states, J. Theor. Biol., 257 (2009), 642–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.12.018 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.12.018
[28]	S. J. van Albada, R. T. Gray, P. M. Drysdale, P. A. Robinson, Mean-field modeling of the basal ganglia-thalamocortical system. Ⅱ: dynamics of parkinsonian oscillations, J. Theor. Biol., 257 (2009), 664–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.12.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.12.013
[29]	G. W. Arbuthnott, M. Garcia-Munoz, Are the symptoms of parkinsonism cortical in origin?, Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J., 15 (2017), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2016.10.006 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2016.10.006
[30]	C. F. Underwood, L. C. Parr-Brownlie, Primary motor cortex in Parkinson's disease: Functional changes and opportunities for neurostimulation, Neurobiol. Dis., 147 (2021), 105159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2020.105159 doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2020.105159
[31]	M. D. Bevan, P. J. Magill, D. Terman, J. P. Bolam, C. J Wilson, Move to the rhythm: oscillations in the subthalamic nucleus-external globus pallidus network, Trends Neurosci., 25 (2002), 525–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(02)02235-X doi: 10.1016/S0166-2236(02)02235-X
[32]	A. Pavlides, S. J. Hogan, R. Bogacz, Computational models describing possible mechanisms for generation of excessive beta oscillations in Parkinson's disease, PLoS Comput. Biol., 11 (2015), e1004609. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004609 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004609
[33]	Y. Chen, J. Wang, Y. Kang, M. B. Ghori, Emergence of beta oscillations of a resonance model for Parkinson's disease, Neural Plast., 2020 (2020), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8824760 doi: 10.1155/2020/8824760
[34]	M. M. McGregor, A. B. Nelson, Circuit mechanisms of Parkinson's disease, Neuron, 101 (2019), 1042–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.03.004
[35]	M. D. Humphries, J. A. Obeso, J. K. Dreyer, Insights into Parkinson's disease from computational models of the basal ganglia, J. Neurol., Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 89 (2018), 1181–1188. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2017-315922 doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2017-315922
[36]	B. C. M. van Wijk, H. Cagnan, V. Litvak, V. Litvak, A. A. Kühn, K. J. Friston, et al., Generic dynamic causal modelling: An illustrative application to Parkinson's disease, NeuroImage, 181 (2018), 818–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.039 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.08.039
[37]	M. C. Chen, L. Ferrari, M. D. Sacchet, L. C. Foland-Ross, M. Qiu, I. H. Gotlib, et al., Identification of a direct GABA ergic pallidocortical pathway in rodents, Eur. J. Neurosci., 41 (2015), 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12822 doi: 10.1111/ejn.12822
[38]	A. Saunders, I. A. Oldenburg, V. K. Berezovskii, C. A. Johnson, N. D. Kingery, H. L. Elliott, et al., A direct GABAergic output from the basal ganglia to frontal cortex, Nature, 521 (2015), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14179 doi: 10.1038/nature14179
[39]	P. R. Castillo, E. H. Middlebrooks, S. S. Grewal, L. Okromelidze, J. F. Meschia, A. Quinones-Hinojosa, et al., Globus pallidus externus deep brain stimulation treats insomnia in a patient with Parkinson disease, in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Elsevier, 95 (2020), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.11.020
[40]	J. Dong, S. Hawes, J. Wu, W. Le, H. Cai, Connectivity and functionality of the globus pallidus externa under normal conditions and Parkinson's disease, Front. Neural Circuits, 15 (2021), 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2021.645287 doi: 10.3389/fncir.2021.645287
[41]	T. Tsuboi, M. Charbel, D. T. Peterside, M. Rana, A. Elkouzi, W. Deeb, et al., Pallidal connectivity profiling of stimulation-induced dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease, Mov. Disord., 36 (2021), 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.28324 doi: 10.1002/mds.28324
[42]	R. G. Burciu, D. E. Vaillancourt, Imaging of motor cortex physiology in Parkinson's disease, Mov. Disord., 33 (2018), 1688–1699. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.102 doi: 10.1002/mds.102
[43]	G. Foffani, J. A. Obeso, A cortical pathogenic theory of Parkinson's disease, Neuron, 99 (2018), 1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.028 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.07.028
[44]	A. Guerra, D. Colella, M. Giangrosso, A. Cannavacciuolo, G. Paparella, G. Fabbrini, et al., Driving motor cortex oscillations modulates bradykinesia in Parkinson's disease, Brain, 145 (2022), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab257 doi: 10.1093/brain/awab257
[45]	Z. Wang, B. Hu, L. Zhu, J, Lin, M. Xu, D. Wang, Hopf bifurcation analysis for Parkinson oscillation with heterogeneous delays: A theoretical derivation and simulation analysis, Commun. Nonlinear. Sci., 114 (2022), 106614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106614 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106614
[46]	T. P. Vogels, K. Rajan, L. F. Abbott, Neural network dynamics, Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 28 (2005), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135637 doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135637
[47]	H. Kita, Y. Tachibana, A. Nambu, S. Chiken, Balance of monosynaptic excitatory and disynaptic inhibitory responses of the globus pallidus induced after stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in the monkey, J. Neurosci., 25 (2005), 8611–8619. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1719-05.2005 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1719-05.2005
[48]	J. T. Paz, J. M. Deniau, S. Charpier, Rhythmic bursting in the cortico-subthalamo-pallidal network during spontaneous genetically determined spike and wave discharges, J. Neurosci., 25 (2005), 2092–2101. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4689-04.2005 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4689-04.2005
[49]	H. Kita, S. T. Kitai, Intracellular study of rat globus pallidus neurons: membrane properties and responses to neostriatal, subthalamic and nigral stimulation, Brain Res., 564 (1991), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(91)91466-E doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(91)91466-E
[50]	M. A. Lebedev, S. P. Wise, Oscillations in the premotor cortex: single-unit activity from awake, behaving monkeys, Exp. Brain Res., 130 (2000), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050022 doi: 10.1007/s002210050022
[51]	W. Schultz, R. Romo, Neuronal activity in the monkey striatum during the initiation of movements, Exp. Brain Res., 71 (1988), 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00247503 doi: 10.1007/BF00247503
[52]	N. E. Hallworth, C. J. Wilson, M. D. Bevan, Apamin-sensitive small conductance calcium-activated potassium channels, through their selective coupling to voltage-gated calcium channels, are critical determinants of the precision, pace, and pattern of action potential generation in rat subthalamic nucleus neurons in vitro, J. Neurosci., 23 (2003), 7525–7542. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-20-07525.2003 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-20-07525.2003
[53]	H. Kita, Globus pallidus external segment, Prog. Brain Res., 160 (2007), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(06)60007-1 doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(06)60007-1
[54]	H. Kita, A. Nambu, K. Kaneda, Y. Tachibana, M. Takada, Role of ionotropic glutamatergic and GABAergic inputs on the firing activity of neurons in the external pallidum in awake monkeys, J. Neurophysiol., 92 (2004), 3069–3084. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00346.2004 doi: 10.1152/jn.00346.2004
[55]	H. Nakanishi, H. Kita, S. T. Kitai, Intracellular study of rat substantia nigra pars reticulata neurons in an in vitro slice preparation: electrical membrane properties and response characteristics to subthalamic stimulation, Brain Res., 437 (1987), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(87)91525-3 doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(87)91525-3
[56]	K. Fujimoto, H. Kita, Response characteristics of subthalamic neurons to the stimulation of the sensorimotor cortex in the rat, Brain Res., 609 (1993), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(93)90872-K doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(93)90872-K
[57]	A. Gillies, D. Willshaw, Membrane channel interactions underlying rat subthalamic projection neuron rhythmic and bursting activity, J. Neurophysiol., 95 (2006), 2352–2365. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00525.2005 doi: 10.1152/jn.00525.2005
[58]	H. Kita, S. T. Kitai, Intracellular study of rat globus pallidus neurons: membrane properties and responses to neostriatal, subthalamic and nigral stimulation, Brain Res., 564 (1991), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(91)91466-E doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(91)91466-E
[59]	Y. Hirai, M. Morishima, F. Karube, Y. Kawaguchi, Specialized cortical subnetworks differentially connect frontal cortex to parahippocampal areas, J. Neurosci., 32 (2012), 1898–1913. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2810-11.2012 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2810-11.2012
[60]	Y. H. Tanaka, Y. Tanaka, F. Fujiyama, T. Furuta, Y. Yanagawa, T. Kaneko, Local connections of layer 5 GABAergic interneurons to corticospinal neurons, Front. Neural Circuits, 5 (2011), 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2011.00012 doi: 10.3389/fncir.2011.00012
[61]	M. H. Higgs, S. J. Slee, W. J. Spain, Diversity of gain modulation by noise in neocortical neurons: regulation by the slow afterhyperpolarization conductance, J. Neurosci., 26 (2006), 8787–8799. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1792-06.2006 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1792-06.2006
[62]	A. L. Barth, J. F. A. Poulet, Experimental evidence for sparse firing in the neocortex, Trends Neurosci., 35 (2012), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2012.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2012.03.008
[63]	A. P. Prudnikov, Y. A. Brychkov, O. I. Marichev, Integrals and series: direct laplace transforms, Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203750643 doi: 10.1201/9780203750643
[64]	K. Udupa, N. Bahl, Z. Ni, C. Gunraj, F. Mazzella, E. Moro, et al., Cortical plasticity induction by pairing subthalamic nucleus deep-brain stimulation and primary motor cortical transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson's disease, J. Neurosci., 36 (2016), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2499-15.2016 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2499-15.2016
[65]	M. Dagan, T. Herman, R. Harrison, J. Zhou, N. Giladi, G. Ruffini, et al., Multitarget transcranial direct current stimulation for freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease, Mov. Disord., 33 (2018), 642–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27300 doi: 10.1002/mds.27300
[66]	E. Lattari, S. S. Costa, C. Campos, A. J. Oliveira, S. Machado, G. A. M. Neto, Can transcranial direct current stimulation on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves balance and functional mobility in Parkinson's disease?, Neurosci. Lett., 636 (2017), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.11.019 doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.11.019

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)