Of course, it turns out that the user is interested in the effect of a synaptic input at one point
on membrane potential at some other point, and how the shape of the cell influences this
effect.
I think the only things that change by geometry is the input resistance of the cell and the axial resistance.
. . . then the attenuation of amplitude depends on the axial resistance in the way to the soma.
ri() is only the axial resistance between two adjacent nodes. It isn't the axial resistance
between the synaptic location and the spike trigger zone (or any other location you might
be interested in). More importantly, it does not tell you anything at all about how much signal
current leaks out the membrane between the nodes, or how much escapes into any other
branch that might be attached to the "upstream" node, or even what the signal current does
to membrane potential at the downstream node.
The best predictor of the effect of subthresold synaptic inputs on membrane potential is
the transfer impedance between the synaptic location and the location at which you
observe the psp. Read about this in
David B. Jaffe and Nicholas T. Carnevale
Passive Normalization of Synaptic Integration Influenced by Dendritic Architecture
J Neurophysiol, Dec 1999; 82: 3268 - 3285.
which you can get for free from Journal of Neurophysiology
http://jn.physiology.org/
[/quote]