Table 3.
The results of 1,000 iterations of each statistical evaluation procedure using different replay evaluation procedures and minimum grid cell spike counts.
| Method 1: PC line fit to GC PPM | Method 2: Event/rate map correlation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Replay evaluation method | Event shuffle | Spatial shuffle | Temporal shuffle | Temporal shuffle | Spatial shuffle |
| Ólafsdóttir et al. Approach (Version 1) | 56.9% | 60.5% | 0.0% | 73.6% | 33.5% |
| (1) Replay evaluated against spatial shuffle only | |||||
| (2) No minimum trajectory enforced | |||||
| (3) One grid cell spike minimum | |||||
| Event Counts: PC, n = 1347; GC, n = 1700 | |||||
| O’Neill et al. Approach (Version 1) | 8.2% | 9.2% | 0.0% | 70.9% | 13.9% |
| (1) Replay evaluated against both spatial and temporal shuffle | |||||
| (2) Minimum trajectory enforced | |||||
| (3) One grid cell spike minimum | |||||
| Event Counts: PC, n = 907; GC, n = 1700 | |||||
| O’Neill et al. Approach (Version 2) | 8.4% | 8.3% | 0.0% | 71.2% | 13.3% |
| (1) Replay evaluated against both spatial and temporal shuffle | |||||
| (2) No minimum trajectory enforced | |||||
| (3) One grid cell spike minimum | |||||
| Event Counts: PC, n = 1311; GC, n = 1700 | |||||
| O’Neill et al. Approach (Version 3) | 34.9% | 5.1% | 0.0% | 0.5% | 5.0% |
| (1) Replay evaluated against both spatial and temporal shuffle | |||||
| (2) Minimum trajectory enforced | |||||
| (3) Five grid cell spike minimum | |||||
| Event Counts: PC, n = 907; GC, n = 719 | |||||
For each set of parameters, percentages indicate the proportion of 1,000 iterations that returned spuriously significant results. The data displayed here correspond to those described in the text in Section “Results Observed Using Methods of O’Neill et al. (2017).” PC, place cell; GC, grid cell; PPM, posterior probability matrix.