where $\int_\Omega\cdot\deriv{v}$ is shorthand for the volume integral over the segment $\Omega$, and $\int_\Gamma\cdot\deriv{s}$ is shorthand for the surface integral over the surface $\Gamma$.
The surface of the cable segment is sub-divided into the left, right and external parts of the surface.
The external surface $\Gamma_{ext}$ is the cell membrane, at the interface between the extra-cellular and intra-cellular regions.
The surface of the cable segment is sub-divided into the internal and external surfaces.
The external surface $\Gamma_{ext}$ is the cell membrane at the interface between the extra-cellular and intra-cellular regions.
The current, which is the conserved quantity in our conservation law, over the surface is composed of the synapse and ion channel contributions.
This is derived from a thin film approximation to the cell membrane, whereby the membrane is treated as an infinitesimally thin interface between the intra and extra cellular regions.
The left and right surface are the interface between the cable segment and its neighbour.
The internal surfaces are the interface between the cable segment and its neighbour segments which are denoted by the set $\mathcal N$.
Equation~\eq{eq:cable_balance} handles the general case where a cable might lie at a branch, and can be simplified for a one dimensional segment:
Note that some information is lost when going from a three-dimensional description of a neuron to a system of branching one-dimensional cable segments.
If the cell is represented by cylinders or frustrums\footnote{a frustrum is a truncated cone, where the truncation plane is parallel to the base of the cone.}, the definition of volume and surface area at branch points are not exact as far as I can see.
See \cite{lindsay_2004} for a detailed derivation of the cable equation, and extensions to the one-dimensional model that account for radial variation of potential.
The formulation in equations~\eq{eq:cable} and~\eq{eq:cable_balance} is based on the following expression in three dimensions (based on Maxwell's equations adapted for neurological modelling)
...
...
@@ -64,4 +75,5 @@ That is, potential is a function of the axial distance $x$ alone
\begin{equation}
\vv{E} = \nabla\phi = \pder{V}{x}.
\end{equation}
This is not really true, because a potential field that is a variable of $x$ and $t$ alone can't support the axial gradients required to drive the potential difference over the cell membrane.
This is not strictly true, because a potential field that is a variable of $x$ and $t$ alone can't support the axial gradients required to drive the potential difference over the cell membrane.
I am still trying to get my head around the assumptions made in mapping a three-dimensional problem to a pseudo one-dimensional one.