# Conventions for neuron model names

For model names we want to use the formula:

```
dynamics + [element type] + [psc | cond] + synaptic dynamics + [numerics]
```

And therefore we get:

```
iaf_psc_delta IaF neuron with delta-current input pulses
iaf_psc_exp IaF with exponentially decaying input current
iaf_psc_alpha IaF with alpha-shaped input current
iaf_psc_alpha_presc same, with prescient numerics
iaf_psc_alpha_canon same, with canonical numerics
iaf_cond_alpha IaF with conductance-based alpha input
```

A further label could specify the number and interpretation of the
`rports`

, for example `iaf_psc_alpha_multisynapse`

.

For models based on specific publications the general naming rule is

```
<model category>_<initials>_year
```

Examples are

`iaf_chs_2007`

(Carandini M, Horton JC, Sincich LC (2007) Thalamic filtering of retinal spike trains by postsynaptic summation. J Vis 7(14):20,1-11)`iaf_chxk_2008`

(Casti A, Hayot F, Xiao Y, and Kaplan E (2008) A simple model of retina-LGN transmission. J Comput Neurosci 24:235-252)`iaf_tum_2000`

(Tsodyks M, Uziel A, Markram H (2000) Synchrony Generation in Recurrent Networks with Frequency-Dependent Synapses. J Neurosci 20:RC50, 1-5)

We haven’t applied these rules completely consistently, but for neuron
models that are mainly known from a single paper and that have not
been given a more general name in the publications that introduced
them (e.g. `aeif`

and `amat`

models), one should stick to this rule.