Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Nov 24.
Published in final edited form as: Cell. 2021 Nov 24;184(24):5854–5868.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.10.021

Figure 6: Ensemble activity arises from underlying structure.

Figure 6:

(A) Model 1 (“structured”): evoked activity uses spatial pre-patterning shared with spontaneous activity. Model 2 (“flexible”): assemblies generated de novo at each stimulus location.

(B) Example of spontaneous followed by evoked activity data. Dots indicate time of a GCaMP peak. Diagram: experiment and approximate FOV.

(C) Pairwise correlation during spontaneous (left panels) and corresponding evoked (right panels) epochs. Panel B corresponds to jellyfish 2.

(D) Variance explained in evoked data using its own principal components (PCs, orange) or those from spontaneous activity (blue). The first 5 PCs from spontaneous explain 85% of variance in evoked. Dots here and in E represent the 5 animals in C.

(E) Alignment indices, using the first 5 PCs from spontaneous to explain variance in evoked. Index is significantly higher than using PCs from random subspaces (p = 0.0079, Mann-Whitney Test).

(F) GLMs trained using only the spontaneous activity epoch; evoked neural activity could still be predicted with high accuracy (right, R2, dots: neurons from all jellyfish in C).

See also Figure S5.