Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Nov 12.
Published in final edited form as: Neuron. 2009 Nov 12;64(3):404–418. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.020

Figure 2. Sparseness of sensory responses varies between cell classes.

Figure 2

(A) Sparseness was assessed using a “response probability” measure, for which smaller values indicate sparser firing (see text). Bars above and below dotted line indicate cell-classes identified morphologically by juxtacellular recording (“juxtacells”), and silicon probe-recorded units putatively classified by spike waveform (“extracells”), respectively. Asterisks denote pairwise post-hoc lsd tests, indicating a significant difference (p<0.05) to the class corresponding to that color. Post-hoc comparisons were performed for juxtacells and extracells separately. sP, superficial PCs; dP, deep PCs; sI, superficial INs; dI, deep INs. Error bars indicate SE.

(B) Sparseness is correlated across stimulus types. Each symbol shows the response probability of one cell to tone and click stimuli, with large symbols indicating juxtacells.

(C) Information-theoretic analysis. L2/3PCs showed greater predictability from the presented tone, measured in bits/spike, than L4PCs, L5tPCs and L6PCs (ANOVA with post-hoc lsd test, p<0.01).