Plot of the normalized fold increase in spectral power in different bands as a
function of photo-stimulating SOM neurons at those frequencies (SOM: n =
7 cells; significant effect of stimulation frequency on fold-increase p
< 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA, error bars denote mean ± s.e.m.).
b) As in a) but for PV neurons. n = 6 cells;
significant effect of stimulation frequency on fold-increase p = 0.013,
Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA c) Experimental schematic: Two L2/3 pyramidal
neurons are patched in a slice from a mouse expressing ChR2 specifically in SOM
neurons. The pyramidal neurons are injected with random and independent barrages
of simulated excitatory conductances via a dynamic clamp. A custom fast feedback
circuit detects rising 0 mV crossings of the membrane potential in the trigger
cells, and drives blue light stimulation of nearby SOM-ChR2 neurons with a pulse
of blue light. d) Top left: schematic of the spike-triggered
optical feedback scheme. Top middle: Example membrane potential traces of the
IPSP recorded in a pair of pyramidal cells to a flash of blue light (peak IPSP
amplitude population mean = 8.0 ± 0.9mV). Current was injected
to bring membrane potentials to −50mV. Top right: Voltage-clamp
recording from the same Pyramidal neurons to the same light stimulus.
−40mV holding potential (peak IPSC amplitude population mean =
210±40 pA). Bottom: example traces of action potentials in the recorded
pair while optical feedback was engaged. Blue ticks indicated triggered flashes
of blue light to the action potentials in the black trace. e)
Example cross correlation between a recorded pair of pyramidal cells under
control conditions (black), feedback (blue), and pseudo-feedback (grey).
f) Average cross spectrum between the two recorded
neurons’ spiking, (mean values between 22–39Hz: control=
0.033 (sp/s)/Hz, feedback= 0.242 (sp/s)/Hz, pseudo-feedback=
0.065 (sp/s)/Hz; p<0.001, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA). Inset: Average
coherence spectrum. g) Average change in synchronous spike
probability for the recorded pairs of neurons under control, feedback, and
pseudo-feedback conditions (mean values: control= −0.001,
feedback= 0.034, pseudo-feedback= 0.015; n=13 pairs; p
< 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA). All error bars are s.e.m.