Synthetic modeling study demonstrates improved accuracy of a typed action-potential chain across 48 simulated systems, highlighting distinct biophysical transmission stages.
This major revision reconstructs the Action-Potential Magnitude Effect as a typed, receiver-relative chain rather than a claim that spike amplitude universally varies. It separates action-potential waveform and duration, propagation, presynaptic calcium, vesicle release, postsynaptic response, electromechanical deformation, periodic power, aperiodic spectra, and cross-scale consequence; limits any inverse frequency–magnitude relationship to preparation-specific local log sensitivities; and distinguishes established physiology from SAN hypotheses about phase-wave differentials, Neural Tuning, and distributed rendering. A deterministic reference application spans 48 systems, seven intervention families, five models, and 1,680 evaluations. The typed model achieved intervention-effect RMSE 0.000697 versus 0.038113 for the best alternative, with perfect relation/sign recovery in the declared synthetic system. Lean 4 verifies eight bounded mathematical leaves. These are formal and synthetic results, not biological confirmation. ## Evidence boundary The reference application is deterministic and synthetic, and the Lean layer proves only the declared model statements. The work does not establish a universal inverse frequency–magnitude law, does not equate waveform, release, receiver response, and population power, and does not empirically confirm the proposed SAN cross-scale interpretation. The manuscript is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Micah Blumberg (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: