Figure 6. Enhancing early inhibition does not accelerate the development of binocular neurons.

(A) Proportions of imaged cells at P18 whose receptive field tuning kernels were classified as unresponsive (U), responsive solely to stimulation of the contralateral (C) or ipsilateral (I) eye, or responsive to both eyes (B) in normally reared mice (NR, n=4 mice) and in mice that received I.P. injections of diazepam (Dzp, n=4 mice) on P15 and P16.

(B) Examples of receptive field tuning kernels for binocular neurons in normally reared and diazepam treated mice. Examples of kernels evoked via contralateral or ipsilateral eye stimulation for the same neuron are plotted adjacent to each other. Kernels from 3 example neurons representing the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd quartiles of the tuning quality distribution for each condition are labeled i-iii, as in Figure 3E.

(C) Boxplot of binocular matching coefficients in NR mice (n=4 mice, 220 cells) and Dzp treated mice (n=4 mice, 277 cells). Black horizontal line, median; box, quartiles with whiskers extending to 2.698σ. Mann-Whitney U test, *, p<0.05.

(D) Boxplots of spatial frequency preferences of binocular neurons evoked via contralateral or ipsilateral eye stimulation in NR and Dzp mice. Black horizontal line, median; box, quartiles with whiskers extending to 2.698σ. Mann-Whitney U test, *, p<0.05 for Ipsi.

(E) As in D, but for complexity, **, p<0.01 for Ipsi.

See also Figure S6.