Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Aug 20.
Published in final edited form as: J Neurosci. 2013 Feb 20;33(8):3567–3581. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4522-12.2013

Figure 11. Comparison of the inter-neuronal correlations between VIP and MSTd.

Figure 11

(A), (B) Average (±95% CI) time course of noise correlation (rnoise) in area VIP (orange) and MSTd (black) during vestibular (A) and visual (B) stimulation (VIP: n=139; MSTd: n=67). (C), (D) Relationship between rnoise and signal correlation (rsignal) in area VIP (orange) and MSTd (black) during vestibular (C) and visual (D) stimulation. Data are separated into those recorded from naïve (open symbols, VIP: n=75; MSTd: n=25) and trained (filled symbols, n=64; MSTd: n=42) animals. Lines show linear regression fits to the data from each area (pooled across naïve and trained animals). (E), (F) VIP data with significant tuning either to vestibular or visual tuning for each pair, now separated into the type of recorded pair; MM (Multisensory+Multisensory): both cells were multisensory (n=14); UM (Unimodal+Multisensory): one cell was multisensory, the other unimodal (n=21); and UU (Unimodal+Unimodal): both cells were unimodal (n=29). Lines represent regression fits (ANCOVA). Only data recorded from a single electrode are shown (MSTd data from Gu et al. 2012).