Skip to main content
. 2024 Jan 3;27(1):137–147. doi: 10.1038/s41593-023-01510-5

Fig. 2. Population responses reveal nearby activation and surround suppression, with total recruited suppression dependent on ensemble spread.

Fig. 2

a, Left, schematic representation of the minimal distance metric for nontarget cells (magenta, targeted cells; gray, off-target cells and blue, nontargeted cells). Right, nontargeted cell responses to optogenetic stimulation as a function of minimal distance to ensemble (open circles) fitted to a sum of Gaussian spatial functions (A1 = 0.196, σ1 = 22.1 µm, A2 = −0.021, σ2 = 147.3 µm). Cells near the stimulated ensemble were reliably activated, while cells further away from a target were suppressed (<30 µm from a target mean ΔF/F: 0.044 ± 0.005, P = 1.1 × 10−10; 50–150 µm from a target mean ΔF/F: −0.013 ± 0.001, P = 4.0 × 10−17, two-sided signed rank test). Bin sizes are 15 µm. Mean ± s.e.m. b, Left, schematic representation of ensemble spread metric (mean pairwise distance). Right, nontargeted cell responses averaged across the population (n = 160) for ensembles with different spreads. Activating a spatially compact ensemble drives more surround suppression than stimulating a spatially diffuse ensemble (linear regression of mean ΔF/F versus spread slope: 1.3 × 10−4 ΔF/F per µm spread, P = 1.4 × 10−5). c, Schematics illustrating the ability of the targeted cells to activate inhibitory pathways via convergences for compact (left) and diffuse (right) ensembles.