Single-neuron

and population PSTHs were compiled around d

Single-neuron

and population PSTHs were compiled around deliveries NVP-AUY922 datasheet of tastants. Unless otherwise specified in the text, a bin size of 125 ms was used. The analyses were repeated using different bin width and yielded similar results. Neurons were defined as taste responsive within each bin if the firing rates evoked by the four stimuli significantly differed from each other with a p value <0.05 using a one-way ANOVA (trials x tastants). The breadth of tuning of each neuron in each bin was quantified by measuring entropy (H). H was computed as previously reported by Smith and Travers (1979) using the following formula: H=−K∑i=1nPilogPi,where K is a constant, and Pi is the proportional response to each tastant. Low H

indicated higher tastant selectivity of a response, whereas high H represented broader tuning (H = 1 means that the neuron responds to all the stimuli in the same way). Consistent with prior literature in the taste field, we performed entropy analysis on each neuron’s average response profile; hence, individual neuron H values yielded no confidence interval. Single-trial classification Olaparib supplier analysis was performed for each ensemble of simultaneously recorded neurons on the basis of their PSTH (Jones et al., 2007). A vector of firing rates was computed for each group of neurons and in each bin. Single trials were classified by comparing their population response with the average population responses for each of the four tastants. Average population responses were compiled using all the trials minus the one being classified. The Euclidean distance between the single-trial population vector of firing

rates and the average response was used to measure the similarity. This analysis held a percent correct classification for each bin in a session. Classification performance was then averaged across all the sessions, and differences between conditions Montelukast Sodium for each bin were compared across conditions using a t test (p < 0.05). Analysis of cue responses was limited to the window from the onset of the cue to the time of the earliest lever press for each session. Responses to cues were considered significant when the comparison of post-cue with spontaneous firing averaged across 50 ms-wide bins produced a p < 0.05 with one-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post hoc analyses. As with taste responses, overall responsiveness to cues was visualized relying on population PSTHs averaged across multiple neurons. The latency of tone responses was computed using analysis techniques based on the cumulative sum of spiking responses across trials (Wiest et al., 2005). Briefly, for each neuron all the trials were combined and binned at 1 ms. The cumulative sum of spike counts was then calculated from 500 ms before the cue to the time of the first lever press after the tone. Expected cumulative sum was computed on the basis of the prestimulus firing rate.

This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>