Skip to main content
. 2017 Aug 3;6:e27621. doi: 10.7554/eLife.27621

Figure 5. PFC modulation during SWRs distinguishes between MAP- and IAP- SWRs.

(A-C) PFC spiking activity aligned to SWRs. Spike raster (first and third rows, number of SWR events shown on y axis) and mean firing rate (second and fourth rows) for each cell are shown. Upper two rows: firing aligned to IAP-SWRs. Lower two rows: firing aligned to MAP-SWRs. SWRs are sorted by length (shaded in cyan, mean duration shown by blue bar above raster). n.s. not significant, **p<0.005 and ***p<0.0005 using a circular permutation test (Materials and methods). (A) Two example cells showing a significant increase in firing during IAP-SWRs but no change (cell 1) or a significant decrease in firing (cell 2) during MAP-SWRs. (B) Two example cells showing a significant increase in firing around MAP-SWRs but no change (cell 3) or a significant decrease in firing (cell 4) during IAP-SWRs. (C) Example cell showing significant decreases in firing during both IAP-SWRs and MAP-SWRs. (D-G) PFC units showing significant changes in activity during SWRs (n = 70, gray circles) classified into one of four groups (colored circles), based on the significance of their modulation indices for IAP-SWRs (y axis) and MAP-SWRs (x axis). The gray circles are repeated in each panel and the colored circles highlight cells belonging to each group (cell count shown in each panel). (D) Significantly excited only during IAP-SWRs (IAP-SWR+) (observed = 14, expected = 18, Binomial test n.s.). See Materials and methods for calculation of expected values. (E) Significantly excited only during MAP-SWRs (MAP-SWR+) (observed = 20, expected = 18, Binomial test n.s.). (F) Significantly inhibited during either or both IAP-SWRs and MAP-SWRs (IAP/MAP-SWR-) (observed = 33, expected = 26, Binomial test: n.s.). (G)Significantly excited during both IAP-SWRs and MAP-SWRs (IAP- and MAP-SWR+) (observed = 3, expected = 9, Binomial test: p<0.05). Fewer than the expected number of cells was observed in this group.

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. PFC modulation patterns distinguish between the identity of IAP- and MAP-SWRs and not differences in SWR duration.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

(A) PFC modulation during MAP-SWRs (x axis) and IAP-SWRs (y axis). The units shown are those with significant modulation to either or both MAP- and IAP-SWRs and are the same as those in Figure 5D–G. (B) PFC modulation of each unit in A after permuting the identity of SWRs. (C) PFC modulation of each unit in A after resampling SWR events to match the distributions of SWR durations for MAP-SWRs and IAP-SWRs. For each unit from the original datasets, 250 SWR events were randomly drawn with replacement before recalculating the SWR modulation indices. (D) The difference between MAP-SWR and IAP-SWR modulation indices was significantly decreased when the identities of SWRs are shuffled (blue) but remained similar to the original data after SWR durations wee matched (green). Wilcoxon rank-sum test: ***P<10-3. PFC modulation during MAP-SWRs and IAP-SWRs were distinct and wass not due to different durations of MAP- and IAP-SWRs.
Figure 5—figure supplement 2. PFC modulation patterns during MAP and IAP-SWRs.

Figure 5—figure supplement 2.

(A) MAP & IAP-SWR modulation versus MAP-SWR modulation. Black circles: cells with significant modulation (p<0.05) during at least one type of SWR (n = 17). Gray circles: not significantly modulated. (B) MAP & IAP-SWR modulation versus IAP-SWR modulation. Black circles: cells with significant modulation (p<0.05) during at least one type of SWR (n = 19). Gray circles: not significantly modulated.