Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2016 May 25;36(21):5861–5876. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4013-15.2016

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

Copyright © 2016 the authors 0270-6474/16/365861-16$15.00/0

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 4. — Cholinergic and glutamatergic inputs to DSGCs exhibit similar contrast sensitivity. A, Median (±quartile) contrast sensitivity of EPSCs before (circles) and after (diamonds) cholinergic receptor blockade by hexamethonium and atropine. Cholinergic blockade eliminated SAC-mediated excitatory input, leaving only the BC-mediated glutamatergic component. B, As in A for NMDAR blockade (+AP5, squares). C, As in A following combined application of cholinergic and NMDAR blockers to isolate the AMPA component (open circles). D, Mean (±SD) lowest contrast level that evoked measurable EPSCs (top) and half-maximal contrast levels (C_[1/2], bottom) were similar in all conditions (p > 0.2, t test). E, Median (±quartile) normalized contrast tuning curves in the different conditions were similar (p > 0.5, two-way ANOVA), indicating that glutamatergic and cholinergic excitatory inputs to DSGCs exhibited similar contrast tuning.