Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Vis Neurosci. 2017 Jan;34:E002. doi: 10.1017/S0952523816000183

Figure 5.

Figure 5

The spatial properties of cone bipolar cell populations are comparable to those of random simulations. a–d: The NNRI (a), VDRI (b), ER (c), and PF (d) for the horizontal cells, cholinergic amacrine cells, Type 2 cone bipolar cells and Type 4 cone bipolar cells (from left to right), averaged across the individual mice (i.e. n = the number of mice, each being the average of the 6–8 fields per retina). Each pair of bars in the histogram contrasts the real data with the random (density-matched and soma-size constrained) simulations (desaturated bars), with data from B6/J on the left (red), and from A/J on the right (green). Notice that the horizontal cells and cholinergic amacrine cells are significantly different from their random (density-matched and soma-size constrained) simulations on all four spatial statistics, while the two cone bipolar cell types are significantly different only for the NNRI.