Extended Data Fig. 5: Spatial coding in the hippocampus following cue manipulations. | Nature Neuroscience

Extended Data Fig. 5: Spatial coding in the hippocampus following cue manipulations.

From: Membrane potential dynamics underlying context-dependent sensory responses in the hippocampus

Extended Data Fig. 5

a, Behavior of an example animal. Two rewards (red) were delivered in each lap at random locations. Note that the animal licked (blue) along the entire track. bd, Population averages and statistics of ramp depolarizations, theta amplitudes and spiking rates following the cue duplication (n = 4 cells from 3 animals). All data are presented as mean±s.e.m. The same color conventions as in Fig. 2. Paired student t-test (2-sided) was conducted in all analyses. In e,: P = 0.0204 for control, loc. 1 vs. loc. 4; P = 0.2255 for duplication, loc. 1 vs. loc. 4; P = 0.6152 for control loc. 1 vs. duplication loc. 1; P = 0.2318 for control loc. 1 vs. duplication loc. 4; P = 0.0019 for control loc. 4 vs. duplication loc. 4. In f,: P = 0.0011 for control, loc. 1 vs. loc. 4; P = 0.0794 for duplication, loc. 1 vs. loc. 4; P = 0.9538 for control loc. 1 vs. duplication loc. 1; P = 0.3426 for control loc. 1 vs. duplication loc. 4; P = 0.0169 for control loc. 4 vs. duplication loc. 4. In g,: P = 0.0091 for control, loc. 1 vs. loc. 4; P = 0.2591 for duplication, loc. 1 vs. loc. 4; P = 0.6522 for control loc. 1 vs. duplication loc. 1; P = 0.5469 for control loc. 1 vs. duplication loc. 4; P = 0.0216 for control loc. 4 vs. duplication loc. 4. Bar graphs and error bars represent mean and s.e.m., respectively.

Back to article page