Table 2.
Comparison of mPFC- and Te3-evoked responses by BLA nucleus
| MPFC stimulation | Te3 stimulation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Projection neurons | Interneurons | Projection neurons | Interneurons | |||||
| LAT | BL | LAT | BL | LAT | BL | LAT | BL | |
| Latency | 21.0 ± 1.0 | 23.3 ± 1.0 | 16.0 ± 1.3 | 14.7 ± 1.4 | 10.7 ± 0.4 | — | 9.9 ± 0.5 | — |
| n = 17 | n = 25 | n = 20 | n = 21 | n = 53 | n = 24 | |||
| Firing rate (Hz) | 0.087 ± 0.04 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 3.0 ± 0.7 | 2.7 ± 1.1 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | — | 3.6 ± 0.9 | — |
| n = 14 | n = 19 | n = 14 | n = 10 | n = 45 | n = 20 | |||
| AP duration (msec) | 2.9 ± 0.13 | 2.9 ± 0.16 | 1.5 ± 0.05 | 1.8 ± 0.08 | 2.8 ± 0.08 | — | 1.5 ± 0.07 | — |
| n = 14 | n = 19 | n = 20 | n = 17 | n = 49 | n = 22 | |||
| Threshold (t) | 4.8 ± 0.9% | 6.0 ± 1.2% | 5.2 ± 1.7% | 5.6 ± 1.3% | 6.7 ± 0.7% | — | 6.4 ± 1.0% | — |
| n = 10 | n = 11 | n = 14 | n = 13 | n = 36 | n = 18 | |||
| 0.1 mA > t | 18.3 ± 6.4% | 21.4 ± 5.9% | 58.9 ± 12.3% | 67.2 ± 14.3% | 61.9 ± 5.9% | — | 43.4 ± 6.2% | — |
| 0.2 mA > t | 36.3 ± 6.2% | 37.4 ± 7.5% | 84.8 ± 15.6% | 138.6 ± 26.2% | 89.9 ± 5.6% | — | 83.1 ± 10.3% | — |
| 0.3 mA > t | 48.2 ± 8.0% | 54.4 ± 9.3% | 132.6 ± 35.4% | 210.5 ± 50.3% | 95.2 ± 5.7% | — | 110.1 ± 12.9% | — |
| 0.4 mA > t | 52.4 ± 7.9% | 53.1 ± 9.0% | 206.9 ± 75.3% | 248.9 ± 57.2% | 101.6 ± 7.5% | — | 146.9 ± 27.8% | — |
| ES50control | 0.33 | 0.10 | 0.28 | 0.07 | 0.17 | — | 0.22 | — |
| ES50post | >0.4 | 0.37 | >0.4 | 0.39 | 0.09 | — | 0.07 | — |
The latencies, firing rate, and action potential duration between interneurons and projection neurons were significantly different (p < 0.01; t test) when compared as a group or when subdivided by nucleus. There were not significant differences between the firing rate, action potential duration, or latency between the LAT and the BL when comparing within neuronal subtype.
ES50 is the stimulation intensity that evokes a response with a 50% probability. ES50 post denotes after apomorphine administration. This table includes neurons not included elsewhere because data was only collected about firing rate, action potential duration, and response latency.