Table 3. Connectivity map.

# presynaptic cells		L2/3			L4		L5
()		RS	FS	SI	E	FS	IB	RS	FS	SI
L2/3	RS	5	10	10	0	0	20	20	0	0
		(0.22)	(0.3)	(0.03)			(0.212)	(0.212)
	FS	5	8	5	5	0	0	0	0	0
		(0.4)	(0.6)	(0.1)
	SI	5	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		(0.1)	(0.2)
L4	E	5	0	0	10	10	10	10	20	0
		(0.2)			(0.4)	(0.2)	(0.212)	(0.212)	(0.3)
	FS	5	0	0	10	10	0	0	0	0
		(0.02)			(1.0)	(0.3)
L5	IB	0	2	2	0	0	10	10	10	10
			(0.2)	(0.2)			(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.12)	(0.12)
	RS	0	2	2	0	0	10	10	10	10
			(0.2)	(0.2)			(0.02)	(0.02)	(0.05)	(0.15)
	FS	0	0	0	0	0	20	20	20	10
							(0.1)	(0.1)	(0.5)	(0.3)
	SI	0	0	0	0	10	20	10	10	20
						(0.4)	(0.3)	(0,3)	(0.6)	(0.4)

In our model, each post-synaptic cell received synaptic inputs from various types of cells. The rows show the the type of post-synaptic cells, whereas columns represents pre-synaptic cells. We list how many pre-synaptic cells of a particular type were connected to a post-synaptic cell. For instance, L2/3 FS cells received excitation from 2 L5 IB cells. The numbers inside parentheses are maximal conductance of corresponding synapses. Additionally, L2/3 FS and LTS cells received excitation from 10 L2/3 RS cells via NMDA synapses; the maximal conductances are 0.04 and 0.03 , respectively. Since Roopun et al. [24] suggested that only L5 SI cells produced inhibition oscillating in the beta frequency band and that all L5 cells received beta rhythmic inhibition, all L5 cells of our model received inhibition from L5 SI cells. Also, we made inhibitory connections among L2/3 SI cells sparse and weak, since they are known to be rare [103].