Table 2.

Temporal receptive field similarity between neighboring neurons and their dependence on proximity and frequency match.

	DS vs. AT (df = 22,509)	AT vs. ST (df = 424)	ST vs. STBF (df = 145)	DSBF vs. STBF (df = 2015)
Latency	Z = 10.7	Z = −0.27	Z = −0.44	Z = 3.3
	p < 0.001	p = 0.35/N.S.	p = 0.27/N.S.	p < 0.001
IT	Z = 7.1	Z = 0.53	Z = −0.92	Z = 1.8
	p < 0.001	p = 0.23/N.S.	p = 0.10/N.S.	p = 0.005
cTMF	Z = 6.1	Z = 0.98	Z = −0.92	Z = 1.5
	p < 0.001	p = 0.08/N.S.	p = 0.09/N.S.	p = 0.018/N.S.

Statistics are shown for the receptive field latency (ms), integration time (ms), and the characteristic temporal modulation frequency (cTMF). Tests for significant differences of the parameter correlation coefficients (Figure 5) were performed and are reported between the experimental (AT, ST, and STBF) and control groups (DS and DSBF). All comparisons were made at a chance level of 0.05 and were corrected for the number of comparisons (Bonferroni correction). Non-significant comparisons are noted by N.S.