Skip to main content
. 2002 Sep 1;22(17):7434–7443. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-17-07434.2002

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

A, AMPAR-mediated (left) and KAR-mediated (right) EPSPs were modeled in response to 50 afferent fibers, firing randomly and asynchronously at the indicated frequency. The AMPAR-mediated response was variable with little tonic depolarization, whereas the KAR-mediated response was relatively invariant with a large tonic depolarization.B, The average tonic (circles) and peak (triangles) depolarizations are shown as a function of the frequency of afferent firing for 1 sec blocks of the model, run for 20 sec. In this and subsequent figures the first second of the EPSP simulation was excluded from population statistics because it had not yet reached steady state. AMPARs (filled symbols) had little tonic depolarization and a large peak depolarization, whereas KARs (open symbols) had a large tonic depolarization and a peak depolarization that was not much larger (n = 19). C, The CV of the membrane potential is shown as a function of the frequency of afferent firing, as in B. The AMPAR-mediated depolarization (filled circles) had a much larger CV than the KAR-mediated depolarization did (open circles;n = 19).