I followed the suggestions of the referees and implemented the changes listed below, Wulfram Gerstner
This is a good review of the SRM. I just have a few minor suggestions:
Mathematical formulation: `eta is also called the linear filter' you probably mean kappa.
Resonate-and-fire model: this section is extremely short. Why not put the equations of the model like in other sections? What about references? Also, the author might want to refer to the closely related generalized integrate-and-fire models introduced by Richardson et al (2003).
Noise in the SRM `A saturating form for f is not a good choice', could the author say briefly why?
Effects not captured... QIF and EIF: references are lacking.
References should be more uniform. Some references have full author list, others use `et al'. The first ref has `and' between all neighboring authors. Etc.
Reviewer A: Review
This article is well-done: concise but thorough, and with a fair treatment of alternate material.
I have corrected some minor typos in the text, and have only one further suggestion: in the fit to experimental data section, the final sentence could be fleshed out further. "Refractory effects" as measured in the '08 paper means the form of the spike history kernel? The sentence as stated is too vague to support such a recent reference.
======= WULFRAM GERSTNER RESPONSE TO REVIEWER A
thank you for your careful reading of the article and the corrections.-- Regarding your remaining concern: I extended the sentence so as to state that one really sees in these experiments the three different aspects of refractoriness: spike afterpotential, change in responsiveness, and increase in threshold.