Summary of all statistical tests

Figure	Comparison	N	Test	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 $\text{y}~\text{experiment}\hspace{0.33em}\text{type}+\text{(}1\hspace{0.33em}\text{|}\hspace{0.33em}\text{mouse:FoV)}$	0.140	2.566	[0.033, 0.247]	0.010a
1I	comparison of locomotion modulation indices for PN control and PN with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 6 mice, 1,679 cells w/out VIP: 6 mice, 1,585 cells	linear mixed-effects model $\text{y}~\text{experiment}\hspace{0.33em}\text{type}+\text{(}1\hspace{0.33em}\text{|}\hspace{0.33em}\text{mouse:FoV)}$	0.048	1.726	[−0.007, 0.104]	0.084
2D, top	comparison of surround suppression indices during quiescence (Q) for SST control and SST with VIP ablated	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]	<0.001a
2D, bottom	comparison of surround suppression indices during locomotion (L) for SST control and SST with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 6 mice, 101 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 36 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	−0.217	−0.909	[−0.684, 0.250]	0.366
2F, top	comparison of surround suppression indices during Q for PN control and PN with VIP ablated	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]	<0.001a
2F, bottom	comparison of surround suppression indices during L for PN control and PN with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 6 mice, 314 cells w/out VIP: 5 mice, 165 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	−0.423	−2.775	[−0.724, −0.123]	0.006a
3E, left	comparison of false alarm rates for saline-injected mice during light-stimulation-on trials and light-off trials	7 mice	paired t test	N/A	N/A	[−0.063, 0.052]	0.812
3E, right	comparison of false alarm rates for GtACR2-injected mice during light-stimulation-on trials and light-off trials	8 mice	paired t test	N/A	N/A	[−0.019, 0.040]	0.444
3F, left	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ shift for saline-injected and GtACR2-injected (opto) mice for 100° stimuli	saline: 7 mice; GtACR2: 8 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	N/A	[0.268, 0.897]	0.002a
3F, right	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ shift for saline-injected and GtACR2-injected (opto) mice for 20° stimuli	saline: 4 mice; GtACR2: 3 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	N/A	[0.338, 2.459]	0.019
S1C, left	comparison of VIP cell density in control and VIP-ablated mice 10 days post-injection	saline: 3 mice; caspase: 3 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	N/A	[−51.53, 175.52]	0.204
S1C, middle	comparison of VIP cell density in control and VIP-ablated mice 14 days post-injection	saline: 3 mice; caspase: 3 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	N/A	[76.07, 283.96]	0.009a
S1C, right	comparison of VIP cell density in control and VIP-ablated mice 21 days post-injection	saline: 3 mice; caspase: 3 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	N/A	[148.66, 275.64]	<0.001a
S1D	comparison of VIP cell density in behavioral control mice and behavioral VIP-ablated mice	saline: 4 mice; caspase: 4 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	N/A	[151.21, 309.09]	<0.001a
S1E, left	noise correlations of SST $\Delta {\text{F/F}}_0$	Ctrl: 6 mice, 2,180 cell pairs w/out VIP: 4 mice, 447 cell pairs	linear mixed-effects model y ~ 1 + state*experiment type + (1 | mouse:FoV)	βstate = 0.045 βexp = −0.031 βstate*exp = 0.071	4.282 −0.580 2.812	[0.024, 0.065] [−0.135, 0.073] [0.022, 0.121]	<0.001a 0.562 0.005a
S1E, right	noise correlations of PN $\Delta {\text{F/F}}_0$	Ctrl: 5 mice, 1,077 cell pairs w/out VIP: 6 mice, 2,481 cell pairs	linear mixed-effects model y ~ 1 + state*experiment type + (1 | mouse:FoV)	βstate = 0.007 βexp = 0.023 βstate*exp = 0.024	0.569 1.130 1.763	[−0.016, 0.029] [−0.017, 0.064] [−0.003, 0.051]	0.569 0.259 0.078
S1F, left	noise correlations of SST deconvolved $\Delta {\text{F/F}}_0$	Ctrl: 6 mice, 2,180 pairs w/out VIP: 4 mice, 447 pairs	linear mixed-effects model y ~ 1 + state*experiment type + (1 | mouse:FoV)	βstate = −0.011 βexp = −0.027 βstate*exp = 0.099	−1.424 −0.640 5.322	[−0.026, 0.004] [−0.112, 0.057] [0.062, 0.135]	0.155 0.522 <0.001a
S1F, right	noise correlations of PN deconvolved $\Delta {\text{F/F}}_0$	Ctrl: 5 mice, 1,077 pairs w/out VIP: 6 mice, 2,481 pairs	linear mixed-effects model y ~ 1 + state*experiment type + (1 | mouse:FoV)	βstate = −0.016 βexp = −0.019 βstate*exp = 0.015	−1.671 −2.337 1.336	[−0.035, 0.003] [−0.035, −0.003] [−0.007, 0.038]	0.095 0.020 0.181
S1G and S1H, left	noise correlations of SST mean-matched deconvolved $\Delta {\text{F/F}}_0$	Ctrl: 6 mice, (1,293, 975) (Q, L) pairs w/out VIP: 4 mice, (261, 202) (Q, L) pairs	linear mixed-effects model y ~ 1 + state*experiment type + (1 | mouse:FoV)	βstate = −0.024 βexp = −0.014 βstate*exp = 0.098	−1.476 −0.262 3.176	[−0.056, 0.008] [−0.120, 0.092] [0.037, 0.158]	0.140 0.793 0.0015a
S1G and S1H, right	noise correlations of PN mean-matched deconvolved $\Delta {\text{F/F}}_0$	Ctrl: 6 mice, (748, 748) (Q, L) pairs w/out VIP: 6 mice, (1,658, 1786) (Q, L) pairs	linear mixed-effects model y ~ 1 + state*experiment type + (1 | mouse:FoV)	βstate = −0.017 βexp = −0.015 βstate*exp = 0.011	−1.523 −1.508 0.846	[−0.039, 0.005] [−0.033, 0.004] [−0.015, 0.038]	0.128 0.132 0.398
S2B	comparison of percentage of 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	N/A	2.844	[0.060, 0.577]	0.022a
S2D	comparison of percentage of 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	N/A	1.582	[−0.052, 0.296]	0.148
S2F, top	comparison of preferred size of visual responses during Q in SST controls and SST with VIP ablated	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]	0.004a
S2F, bottom	comparison of preferred size of visual responses during L in SST controls and SST with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 4 mice, 66 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 21 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	10.74	0.605	[−24.06, 45.54]	0.547
S2H, top	comparison of preferred size of visual responses during Q in PN controls and PN with VIP ablated	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]	0.003a
S2H, bottom	comparison of preferred size of visual responses during L in PN controls and PN with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 3 mice, 202 cells w/out VIP: 3 mice, 122 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	1.89	0.201	[−16.49, 20.27]	0.841
S2J, top	comparison of surround suppression indices during Q for all visually responsive (tuned and untuned) SST control and SST with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 6 mice, 134 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 69 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	−1.305	−6.101	[−1.724, −0.885]	<0.001a
S2J, bottom	comparison of surround suppression indices during L for all visually responsive (tuned and untuned) SST control and SST with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 6 mice, 121 cells w/out VIP: 4 mice, 53 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	−0.651	−2.752	[−1.115, −0.187]	0.007a
S2L, top	comparison of surround suppression indices during Q for all visually responsive (tuned and untuned) PN control and PN with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 6 mice, 379 cells w/out VIP: 5 mice, 243 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	−0.671	−6.384	[−0.877, −0.465]	<0.001a
S2L, bottom	comparison of surround suppression indices during L for all visually responsive (tuned and untuned) PN control and PN with VIP ablated	Ctrl: 6 mice, 479 cells w/out VIP: 5 mice, 234 cells	zero/one inflated beta mixed-effects regression model (experiment type as fixed effect; mouse with nested FoV as random effects)	−0.459	−4.229	[−0.672, −0.247]	<0.001a
S3F	comparison of modulation indices in response to various light intensities	1 mouse, 84 units	Friedman’s ANOVA and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank test	N/A	N/A	N/A	pLOW-MED < 0.001a pMED-HIGH < 0.001a pLOW-HIGH < 0.001a
S3H		comparison of run probability in saline-injected and GtACR2-injected mice	saline: 7 mice GtACR2: 8 mice	linear mixed-effects model $\text{y}~\text{experiment}\hspace{0.33em}\text{type}+\text{(}1\hspace{0.33em}\text{|}\hspace{0.33em}\text{mouse:FoV)}$	0.068	0.742	[−0.114, 0.250] 0.460
S3I, left	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ shift for saline- injected and GtACR2-injected (opto) mice during Q	saline: 7 mice GtACR2: 8 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	3.615	[0.276, 1.094]	0.003a
S3I, right	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ shift for saline-injected and GtACR2-injected (opto) mice during L	saline: 7 mice GtACR2: 8 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	1.263	[−0.239, 0.913]	0.229
S3J, left	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ for light-stimulation-on trials and light-off trials in GtACR2 mice for 100° stimuli	GtACR2: 8 mice	paired t test	N/A	−5.394	[−0.675, −0.263]	0.001a
S3J, right	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ for light-stimulation-on trials and light-off trials in GtACR2 mice for 20° stimuli	GtACR2: 3 mice	paired t test	N/A	−7.273	[−2.189, −0.562]	0.018a
S3K, left	Comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ for light-stimulation-on trials and light-off trials in saline mice for 100° stimuli	saline: 7 mice	paired t test	N/A	0.944	[−0.181, 0.407]	0.382
S3K, right	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ for light-stimulation-on trials and light-off trials in saline mice for 20° stimuli	saline: 4 mice	paired t test	N/A	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 $\text{y}~\text{experiment}\hspace{0.33em}\text{type}+\text{(}1\hspace{0.33em}\text{|}\hspace{0.33em}\text{mouse:FoV)}$	0.0319	0.729	[−0.054, 0.118]	0.467
S3O, left	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ for saline-injected and VIP-ablated mice during Q	Ctrl (saline): 14 mice w/out VIP: 8 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	−2.231	[−1.655, −0.056]	0.037a
S3O, right	comparison of ${\text{C}}_{50}$ for saline-injected and VIP-ablated mice during L	Ctrl (saline): 14 mice w/out VIP: 8 mice	unpaired t test	N/A	−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	N/A	1.663	[−0.010, 0.095]	0.109

Ctrl, control; w/out, without; FoV, field of vision.

^ap < 0.05