Table 1.
Summary of all statistical analyses.
| Figure | Comparison | N | Test | Statistics | |||||||
| Estimate | t-stat | CI | P-value | ||||||||
| 1F | Comparison of locomotion modulation indices for SST control and SST with VIP ablated | Ctrl: 7 mice, 600 cells w/out VIP: 5 mice, 277 cells | Linear mixed effects model y ~ experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | 0.140 | 2.566 | [0.033, 0.247] | 0.010 | ||||
| 1I | Comparison of locomotion modulation indices for PN control and PN with VIP ablated | Ctrl: 6 mice, 1687 cells w/out VIP: 6 mice, 1617 cells | Linear mixed effects model y ~ experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | 0.050 | 1.817 | [-0.004, 0.104] | 0.067 | ||||
| 2D | Comparison of surround suppression indices for SST control and SST with VIP ablated | Q | Ctrl: 6 mice, 86 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 30 cells | Zero/one inflated beta mixed effects regression model (Experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects) | −0.930 | −3.620 | [−1.439, −0.422] | p<0.001 | |||
| L | Ctrl: 6 mice, 101 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 36 cells | −0.217 | −0.909 | [−0.684, 0.250] | 0.366 | ||||||
| 2F | Comparison of surround suppression indices for PN control and SST with VIP ablated | Q | Ctrl: 6 mice, 279 cells w/out VIP: 5 mice, 175 cells | Zero/one inflated beta mixed effects regression model (Experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects) | −0.545 | −4.288 | [−0.795, −0.295] | p<0.001 | |||
| L | Ctrl: 6 mice, 314 cells w/out VIP: 5 mice, 165 cells | −0.423 | −2.775 | [−0.724, −0.123] | 0.006 | ||||||
| 3E | Comparison of false alarm rates for light stimulation on trials and light off trials | Saline | 7 mice | Paired t-test | [−0.063, 0.052] | 0.812 | |||||
| GtACR2 | 8 mice | [−0.019, 0.040] | 0.444 | ||||||||
| 3F | Comparison of C50 shift for saline injected and GtACR2 injected (opto) mice | 100° stim | Saline: 7 mice; GtACR2: 8 mice | Unpaired t-test | [0.268, 0.897] | 0.002 | |||||
| 20° stim | Saline: 4 mice; GtACR2: 3 mice | [0.338, 2.459] | 0.019 | ||||||||
| S1C | Comparison of VIP cell density in control and VIP ablated mice | 10 days post-inject | Saline: 3 mice; Caspase: 3 mice | Unpaired t-test | [−51.53, 175.52] | 0.204 | |||||
| 14 days post-inject | Saline: 3 mice; Caspase: 3 mice | [76.07, 283.96] | 0.009 | ||||||||
| 21 days post-inject | Saline: 3 mice; Caspase: 3 mice | [148.66, 275.64] | p < 0.001 | ||||||||
| S1D | Comparison of VIP cell density in behavioral control mice and behavioral VIP ablated mice | Saline: 4 mice; Caspase: 4 mice | Unpaired t-test | [151.21, 309.09] | p < 0.001 | ||||||
| S1E | Noise correlations of ΔF/F0 | SST | Ctrl: 6 mice, 2180 cell pairs w/out VIP: 4 mice, 447 cell pairs | Linear mixed effects model y ~ 1 + state*experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | State | 0.045 | 4.282 | [0.024, 0.065] | p < 0.001 | ||
| ExpType | −0.031 | −0.580 | [−0.135, 0.073] | 0.562 | |||||||
| State * ExpType | 0.071 | 2.812 | [0.022, 0.121] | 0.005 | |||||||
| PN | Ctrl: 5 mice, 1077 cell pairs w/out VIP: 6 mice, 2481 cell pairs | Linear mixed effects model y ~ 1 + state*experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | State | 0.007 | 0.569 | [−0.016, 0.029] | 0.569 | ||||
| ExpType | 0.023 | 1.130 | [−0.017, 0.064] | 0.259 | |||||||
| State * ExpType | 0.024 | 1.763 | [−0.003, 0.051] | 0.078 | |||||||
| S1F | Noise correlations of deconvolved ΔF/F0 | SST | Ctrl: 6 mice, 2180 pairs w/out VIP: 4 mice, 447 pairs | Linear mixed effects model y ~ 1 + state*experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | State | −0.011 | −1.424 | [−0.026, 0.004] | 0.155 | ||
| ExpType | −0.027 | −0.640 | [−0.112, 0.057] | 0.522 | |||||||
| State * ExpType | 0.099 | 5.322 | [0.062, 0.135] | p < 0.001 | |||||||
| PN | Ctrl: 5 mice, 1077 pairs w/out VIP: 6 mice, 2481 pairs | Linear mixed effects model y ~ 1 + state*experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | State | −0.016 | −1.671 | [−0.035, 0.003] | 0.095 | ||||
| ExpType | −0.019 | −2.337 | [−0.035, −0.003] | 0.020 | |||||||
| State * ExpType | 0.015 | 1.336 | [−0.007, 0.038] | 0.181 | |||||||
| S1G/H | Noise correlations of mean-matched deconvolved ΔF/F0 | SST | Ctrl: 6 mice, (1293, 975) (Q, L) pairs w/out VIP: 4 mice, (261, 202) (Q, L) pairs | Linear mixed effects model y ~ 1 + state*experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | State | −0.024 | −1.476 | [−0.056, 0.008] | 0.140 | ||
| ExpType | −0.014 | −0.262 | [−0.120, 0.092] | 0.793 | |||||||
| State * ExpType | 0.098 | 3.176 | [0.037, 0.158] | 0.0015 | |||||||
| PN Control | Ctrl: 6 mice, (748, 748) (Q, L) pairs | Linear mixed effects model | State | −0.017 | −1.523 | [−0.039, 0.005] | 0.128 | ||||
| w/out VIP: 6 mice, (1658, 1786) (Q, L) pairs | y ~ 1 + state*experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | ExpType | −0.015 | −1.508 | [−0.033, 0.004] | 0.132 | |||||
| State * ExpType | 0.011 | 0.846 | [−0.015, 0.038] | 0.398 | |||||||
| S2B | Comparison of percent visually tuned cells of all visually responsive cells in SST controls and SST with VIP ablated | Ctrl: 6 mice w/out VIP: 4 mice | Unpaired t-test | 2.844 | [0.060, 0.577] | 0.022 | |||||
| S2D | Comparison of percent visually tuned cells of all visually responsive cells in PN controls and PN with VIP ablated | Ctrl: 6 mice w/out VIP: 5 mice | Unpaired t-test | 1.582 | [−0.052, 0.296] | 0.148 | |||||
| S2F | Comparison of preferred size of visual responses in SST controls and SST with VIP ablated | Q | Ctrl: 6 mice, 86 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 30 cells | Zero/one inflated beta mixed effects regression model (Experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects) | 43.12 | 2.971 | [14.67, 71.57] | 0.004 | |||
| L | Ctrl: 4 mice, 66 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 21 cells | 10.74 | 0.605 | [−24.06, 45.54] | 0.547 | ||||||
| S2H | Comparison of preferred size of visual responses in PN controls and PN with VIP ablated | Q | Ctrl: 6 mice, 254 cells, w/out VIP: 5 mice, 175 cells | Zero/one inflated beta mixed effects regression model (Experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects) | 22.70 | 3.040 | [8.07, 38.33] | 0.003 | |||
| L | Ctrl: 3 mice, 202 cells w/out VIP: 3 mice, 122 cells | 1.89 | 0.201 | [−16.49, 20.27] | 0.841 | ||||||
| S3F | Comparison of modulation indices in response to various light intensities | Low vs Medium | 1 mouse, 84 units | Friedman’s ANOVA and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank test | p < 0.001 | ||||||
| Medium vs High | p < 0.001 | ||||||||||
| Low vs High | p < 0.001 | ||||||||||
| S3H | Comparison of run probability in saline injected and GtACR2 injected mice | Saline: 7 mice GtACR2: 8 mice | Linear mixed effects model y ~ experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | 0.068 | 0.742 | [−0.114, 0.250] | 0.460 | ||||
| S3I | Comparison of c50 shift for saline injected and GtACR2 injected (opto) mice, separated by behavioral state | Q | Saline: 7 mice GtACR2: 8 mice | Unpaired t-test | 3.615 | [0.276, 1.094] | 0.003 | ||||
| L | 1.263 | [−0.239, 0.913] | 0.229 | ||||||||
| S3J | Comparison of c50 for light stimulation on trials and light off trials in GtACR2 mice | 100° stim | GtACR2: 8 mice | Paired t-test | −5.394 | [−0.675, −0.263] | 0.001 | ||||
| 20° stim | GtACR2: 3 mice | Paired t-test | −7.273 | [−2.189, −0.562] | 0.018 | ||||||
| S3K | Comparison of c50 for light stimulation on trials and light off trials in Saline mice | 100° stim | Saline: 7 mice | Paired t-test | 0.944 | [−0.181, 0.407] | 0.382 | ||||
| 20° stim | Saline: 4 mice | Paired t-test | 0.072 | [−1.001, 1.048] | 0.947 | ||||||
| S3N | Comparison of run probability in saline injected and VIP-ablated mice | Ctrl (saline): 14 mice w/out VIP: 8 mice | Linear mixed effects model y ~ experimentType + (1 | mouse:FoV) | 0.0319 | 0.729 | [−0.054, 0.118] | 0.467 | ||||
| S3O | Comparison of c50 for saline injected and VIP-ablated mice, separated by behavioral state | Q | Ctrl (saline): 14 mice w/out VIP: 8 mice | Unpaired t-test | −2.231 | [−1.655, −0.056] | 0.037 | ||||
| L | −1.403 | [−2.054, 0.402] | 0.176 | ||||||||
| S3P | Comparison of lick probability for lowest contrast stimuli in saline injected and VIP-ablated mice | Ctrl (saline): 14 mice w/out VIP: 8 mice | Unpaired t-test | 1.663 | [−0.010, 0.095] | 0.109 | |||||