Fig. 6

Conditionally knocking out Vgat in SACs unmasks strong contextual modulation in the pDSGC On pathway. a Example On spike traces of a pDSGC in Vgat cKO mouse. b Scatter plot compares pDSGC On firing rate during uniform grating and phase-contrast grating in Vgat cKO mice: n = 13 cells from 7 mice, ***p < 0.001. c Summary graph compares CMI of phase-contrast for pDSGC On response in control, Vgat cKO and Gabra2 cKO mice: Kruskal–Wallis test: **p = 0.0016. Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Bonferroni correction: Control vs Vgat cKO: **p = 0.00080; Control vs Gabra2 cKO: p = 0.78. d Summary graph compares SI of pDSGC On firing rate during uniform grating between control, Vgat cKO and Gabra2 cKO mice: Kruskal-Wallis test: **p = 0.0084. Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Bonferroni correction Control vs Vgat cKO: *p = 0.014; Control vs Gabra2 cKO: p = 0.53. e EPSC traces of an example On SAC in Vgat cKO mouse. f Scatter plot of On SAC excitatory charge transfer during uniform grating versus phase-contrast in Vgat cKO mice: n = 21 cells from 5 mice, ***p < 0.001. See also Supplementary Fig. 7 for comparison of On SAC IPSC charge transfer in Vgat cKO mice. g Summary graph compares CMI of phase-contrast for On SAC excitatory charge transfer in control, Vgat cKO and Gabra2 cKO mice: Kruskal-Wallis test: **p = 0.0015. Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Bonferroni correction: Control vs Vgat cKO: *p = 0.0083; Control vs Gabra2 cKO: p = 0.91. h Summary graph compares SI of On SAC excitatory charge transfer during uniform grating between control, Vgat cKO and Gabra2 cKO mice: Kruskal–Wallis test: **p = 0.0013. Wilcoxon rank-sum test with Bonferroni correction: Control vs Vgat cKO: *p = 0.024; Control vs Gabra2 cKO: p = 0.14. i Schematic diagrams show the synaptic connections involved in contextual modulation in the On pathway of the direction selective circuit in wild type and Vgat cKO mice (Yellow rectangles). See also Supplementary Fig. 8 for modulation of direction-contrast in Vgat cKO mice