Supplementary Figure 4: Rotation with congruent gravity and visual cues

(a) Response of the example cell in Fig. 1 when the rotation axis was tilted while the visual environment was kept upright (thus, there was no gravity/vision conflict as in Fig. 1b,c). The peak response occurred in nose-down (ND) orientation, as in Fig. 1, indicating that it remained anchored to gravity. This experiment was repeated in n=48 cells. (b-e) R vector strength and (f-i) preferred direction difference summaries (similar in format as Fig. 2). Panels b and f show that the modulation depth (R vector length) was similar (paired Wilcoxon sign rank test, p = 0.1) with (|R|=0.39 ± 0.2 SD) and without (|R|=0.37 ± 0.2 SD) gravity/vision conflict and PDs were generally aligned (|ΔPD|<45° in 80/96, i.e. 83% data points; |ΔPD|>90° in 7/96, i.e. 7% data points). Panels c and g compare CW and CCW rotations for stimuli without conflict. Cells had similar modulation strength (|R| = 0.38 ± 0.2 SD in CW, 0.36 ± 0.2 SD in CCW, p = 0.49) and |ΔPD| spread between 0° (response to G) and 180° (response to dG/dt). Panels d and h show similarity between +30° and -30° tilt rotations without conflict (|R| = 0.39 ± 0.2 SD versus 0.36 ± 0.2 SD, p = 0.05) and most had similar PD (|ΔPD|<45° in 75/96, i.e. 78% data points; |ΔPD|>90° in 9/96, i.e. 9% data points). Panels e and i show similarity between tuning in light and dark (|R| = 0.37 ± 0.2 SD versus 0.38 ± 0.2 SD, p = 0.23) and most had similar PD (|ΔPD|<45° in 80/96, i.e. 83% data points; |ΔPD|>90° in 4/96, i.e. 4% data points).