Skip to main content
. 2005 Oct 19;25(42):9567–9580. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2992-05.2005

Figure 9.

Figure 9.

Summary data of the Schaffer and temporoammonic pathway interactions and resegregation by alvear-evoked feedback inhibition. A, Summary data on the response in SO. The asterisk indicates significant temporoammonic (TA) throughput (*p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). B, Summary data on the response in SR. Single asterisk indicates significant temporoammonic (TA) throughput (*p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). C, Summary data on the response in SLM. There is no significant difference in stratum lacunosum moleculare responses between the temporoammonic and Schaffer-temporoammonic (SC&TA) stimulation protocols. D, Summary data on the response from Schaffer-temporoammonic stimulation in the presence of AP-5 (50 μm) (left), in the presence of CGP 55845A (2 μm) (center), and the response from Schaffer-alveus-temporoammonic (SC&Alv&TA) stimulation (right) in stratum oriens. There is no significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic (AP-5) and the arithmetic sum of the individual Schaffer (SC) and temporoammonic response (black), indicating that supralinear summation of Schaffer and temporoammonic inputs require activation of NDMA receptors (**p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). There is a significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic (CGP 55845A) and Schaffer-temporoammonic stimulation, indicating that presynaptic disinhibition significantly gates temporoammonic throughput to SO (***p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). There is a significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic and Schaffer-alveus-temporoammonic stimulation, indicating that feedback inhibition significantly suppresses temporoammonic throughput to SO (****p≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). E, Summary data on the response from Schaffer-temporoammonic stimulation in the presence of AP-5 (50 μm) (left), in the presence of CGP 55845A (2 μm) (center), and the response from Schaffer-alveus-temporoammonic stimulation (right) in stratum radiatum. There is no significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic (AP-5) and the arithmetic sum of the individual Schaffer and temporoammonic response (black) (**p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). There is a significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic (CGP 55845A) and Schaffer-temporoammonic stimulation, indicating that presynaptic disinhibition significantly gates temporoammonic throughput to SR (***p ≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). There is significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic and Schaffer-alveus-temporoammonic stimulation, indicating that feedback inhibition significantly suppresses temporoammonic throughput to SR (****p≤ 0.05, ANOVA; n = 9). F, Summary data on the response from Schaffer-temporoammonic stimulation in the presence of AP-5 (50 μm) (left), in the presence of CGP 55845A (2 μm) (center), and the response from Schaffer-alveus-temporoammonic stimulation (right) in stratum lacunosum moleculare. There is no significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic (AP-5) and the arithmetic sum of the individual Schaffer and temporoammonic response (black). There is no significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic (CGP 55845A) and Schaffer-temporoammonic stimulation. There is no significant difference between the responses to Schaffer-temporoammonic and Schaffer-alveus-temporoammonic stimulation.