Table 3.
Effects of EC stimulation on RS2 and NIB pyramidal neurons
| Vup − Vdwn | Area | Duration | % Time | # Events/min | Frequency | |
| RS2 baseline | 6 ± 0.5 | 1702 ± 204.6 | 459 ± 47.5 | 33 ± 5.8 | 43.5 ± 6.9 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
| 0.1 mA | 8.3 ± 1.5 | 3352 ± 557.6* | 843.3 ± 106* | 44.8 ± 8.4 | 31.7 ± 5.3 | 0.5 ± 0.09 |
| 0.5 mA | 9 ± 1.3* | 3486 ± 330.7* | 817 ± 67.6* | 49.8 ± 7.4 | 39.2 ± 6.8 | 0.6 ± 0.1 |
| 1 mA | 11 ± 1.5* | 6917 ± 1610.3* | 1568 ± 352.4* | 69 ± 1.9* | 34.4 ± 8.4 | 0.6 ± 0.1 |
| dNIB baseline | 10 ± 1+ | 3393 ± 514.5+ | 653 ± 71.9 | 53 ± 3 | 55 ± 3.5 | 0.9 ± 0.06 |
| 1 mA | 10.5 ± 1.6 | 7049 ± 2132.7** | 1389 ± 437.3** | 64 ± 2.5** | 36 ±6.5** | 0.6 ± 0.1** |
| NIB baseline | 20 ± 1.4+ | 6412.3 ± 562.7+ | 768.8 ± 38.3 | 65.1 ± 2.8 | 48.5 ± 1.5 | 0.8 ± 0.01 |
| 1 mA | 19.4 ± 1.8 | 7691.1 ± 1499.1 | 1006.3 ± 111.6 | 66 ± 4.5 | 46.8 ± 3 | 0.8 ± 0.05 |
Note: *Statistically different from baseline. Baseline versus 0.1 mA stimulus: Area (one-way ANOVA; DF = [1, 16], F ratio = 11.7, P = 0.03); duration (one-way ANOVA; DF = [1, 16], F ratio = 14.9, P = 0.01). Baseline versus 0.5 mA stimulus: Vup − Vdwn (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA on Ranks test; diff. of ranks = 5.6, Q = 2.2, P < 0.05); area (DF = [1, 18]; F ratio = 23.6; P < 0.001); duration (one-way ANOVA; DF = [1, 18]; F ratio = 20; P < 0.001). Baseline versus 1 mA stimulus: Vup − Vdwn (one-way ANOVA; DF = [1, 14], F ratio = 14.7, P = 0.02); Area (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA on Ranks test; diff. of ranks = 8.5, Q = 3.2, P < 0.05); duration (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA on Ranks test; diff. of ranks = 7.9, Q = 2.9, P < 0.05); % time (Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA on Ranks test; diff. of ranks = 7.6, Q = 2.8, P < 0.05).
Statistically different from baseline. Baseline versus 1 mA stimulus: Area (DF = [1, 11]; F ratio = 5.5; P < 0.05); Duration (Fig. 8B,C) (DF = [1, 10]; F ratio = 5.6; P < 0.05); % Time (DF = [1, 11]; F ratio = 5.2; P < 0.05); # Events/min (DF = [1, 11]; F ratio = 7.7; P < 0.05); Frequency (DF = [1, 11]; F ratio = 7.7; P < 0.05).
Statistically different: baseline of dNIB versus baseline of NIB. Vup − Vdwn (one-way ANOVA; DF = [1, 20]; F ratio = 25.8; P < 0.001); Area (one-way ANOVA; DF = [1, 21]; F ratio = 13.7; P = 0.001). None of the parameters of the NIB neurons were significantly altered by EC stimulation (pre versus poststimulus, one-way ANOVA; P > 0.05).
In all PSTHs, the dotted line indicates delivery of the stimulus pulse.