Figure 3. Plasticity in the shape of the call-evoked LFP.

The timing of when the call-evoked LFP reached specific phases was significantly different between mothers and virgins for sites around call-inhibited but not -excited SUs.

(A1 and B1 box plots) Group comparison of the times at which the Hilbert phase of a site’s average call-evoked LFP reached values of π and 1.16π for call-excited and -inhibited SU sites. These times were not different between mothers and virgins for call-excited sites (Mann-Whitney, N_mothers=16, N_virgins=10, π: U=56, p>0.05, 1.16π: U=52, p>0.05, 2-tailed), but were for phases between π and 1.25π at call-inhibited sites (Mann-Whitney, N_mothers=14, N_virgins=11, π: U=45, p>0.05, 1.16π: U=30, p<0.05, 2-tailed). These phases corresponded to the initial rise from the minimum of the LFP. Note: Sample sizes for LFPs may be less than or equal to that of SUs if more than one SU was isolated at a site.

(A2 and B2) Comparison of the population-averaged LFP for all call-excited or -inhibited sites. The location of π (circle) and 1.25π (square) Hilbert phase values are marked. Notice that the timing difference in the Hilbert phase seen in (B1) manifests as a sizeable shift in the timing of the valley between mothers and virgins.

(C) Variability in the LFP shape depicted as a time-dependent probability histogram of trial-by-trial Hilbert phases. Whiter (Darker) colors indicate higher (lower) probabilities for a specific phase at a specific time.