Table 2.
Numbers of neurons whose activity profiles were preferentially explained by linear versus logarithmic functions (Experiment 1)a
| Interval duration | 3018 ms | 3310 ms | 3629 ms | 3979 ms | 4363 ms | 4784 ms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of neurons significantly modulating their activity according to linear and/or log time | 352 | 375 | 338 | 358 | 411 | 425 |
| Number (percentage) of neurons with higher R2 values for linear functions | 138 (39%) | 160 (43%) | 131 (39%) | 157 (44%) | 179 (44%) | 190 (45%) |
| Number (percentage) of neurons with higher R2 values for logarithmic functions | 214 (61%) | 215 (57%) | 207 (61%) | 201 (56%) | 232 (56%) | 235 (55%) |
| p value (χ2 test) | <10−4 | 0.005 | <10−4 | 0.020 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
aFor each sample interval duration, of those neurons whose activity profiles were significantly correlated with linear or logarithmic passage of time, the numbers of neurons whose activity profiles were better explained by linear versus logarithmic passage of time were compared (Eq. 1). The number of neurons whose activity profiles were better explained by the logarithmic model was significantly larger than that whose activity profiles were better explained by the linear model for each sample interval duration (χ2 test).