Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2022 Jan 10;13:120. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27753-z

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© The Author(s) 2022

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

PMC Copyright notice

Fig. 3 — a, b Regular and irregular otolith afferents robustly respond in the passive, walking and running conditions. Bottom panels show the firing modulation (shaded area) of an example regular afferent (a) and an example irregular afferent (b) in each condition. c Population comparison of regular otolith canal afferent responses (n = 9). Neuronal modulations (top panel) and mean firing rates (bottom panel) were comparable across all conditions as shown by the slopes of the regressions (top panel; walking: p = 0.001, slope = 0.95, CI = ±0.27 and running: p =2.6 × 10⁻⁴, slope = 0.93, CI = ±0.35; bottom panel; walking: p = 0.03, slope = 1.01, CI = ±0.37; running: p = 0.05, slope = 1.07, CI = ±0.28; inset: ANOVA, F_(2,16) = 0.45, p = 0.65 and F_(2,16) = 2.7, p = 0.09 for the modulation and mean firing rate, respectively). d Population comparison of irregular otolith afferent responses (n = 14). Neuronal modulation was comparable during locomotion and passive stimulation (walking: p = 1.3 × 10⁻⁸, slope = 0.97, CI = ±0.13 and running: p = 4.0 × 10⁻⁶, slope = 0.92, CI = ±0.26, respectively; inset: ANOVA, F_(2,26) = 1.03, p = 0.37). In contrast, mean firing rate was higher (gold arrow) during running compared to passive pitch and walking (walking: slope = 0.84, p = 0.001, CI = ±0.30; intercept = 14.6 sp/s, p = 0.49; running: slope = 0.77, p = 0.001, CI = ±0.30; intercept = 33.7 sp/s, p = 0.007; inset: ANOVA, F_(2,26) = 6.0, p = 0.007). For all boxplots, the central mark indicates the median, the middle box indicates the 25th and 75th percentiles and the whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.