11 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2016
    1. This analysis revealed that the response to CL axon stimulation was consistently larger in amplitude than the response to Pf for both direct and indirect pathway MSNs (direct pathway: t(27) = 1.98, p<0.05).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    2. Secondly, the cortical response recovers more quickly than the thalamic response after both 10 Hz and 20 Hz stimulation (ratio of response to first pulse: 10 Hz; cortical 0.87 ± 0.05, vs. thalamic 0.57 ± 0.05, 20 Hz; cortical, 0.90 ± 0.12 vs. t(72) = 3.07, p<0.05).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    3. We found that the paired-pulse ratio (PPR) for afferents from CL are facilitating (t(55) = 2.02, p<0.05), whereas those from Pf are depressing (t(27) = 3.12, p<0.05).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    4. We found that CL synapses are dominated by AMPA receptor-mediated currents, whereas Pf synapses are dominated by NMDA receptor-mediated currents (t(27) = 5.31, p<0.01).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    5. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that the response to CL axon stimulation was larger in amplitude on direct pathway neurons (direct pathway: t(27) = 1.99, p<0.05; Table 1).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    6. Cortical synapses exhibit an NMDA/AMPA ratio in between those of CL and Pf synapses and dominated by NMDA receptor-mediated currents (mean NMDA/AMPA ratio for cortical: t(27) = 2.66, p<0.05).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    7. However, the same protocol applied to CL synapses did not lead to any change in the amplitude of evoked EPSPs (t(27) = 0.41, p<0.05; Figure 5A).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    8. The average amplitude of response following CL axon stimulation was 66.3 ± 13.5 pA (stim strength; 450 mW; n = 16), whereas those following Pf axon stimulation were significantly smaller at 30.7 ± 4.1 pA (stim strength: 980 mW; t = 0.81, p<0.05).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    9. The Pf response is significantly depressing following both the 10 and 20 Hz trains and the rate of recovery was the least of all three responses (t(44) = 3.10, p<0.05; Figure 3B).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    10. Whereas all responses depress eventually, only the responses of CL inputs are facilitating for the first few spikes during both 10 and 20 Hz stimulation CL (t(72) = 1.73, p<0.05;

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

    11. We found that the EPSC properties for CL and Pf synapses using this stimulation strength are remarkably similar, with some small differences in that CL EPSCs were larger in amplitude (t = 2.31, p<0.05) and Pf EPSCs slightly longer in duration (t= 1.01, p=0.02).

      It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.