Fig. 2: Neurons with similar social representations are co-activated during offline SPW-Rs.
a Social preferences of example neurons recorded in the same session. b Example power spectrum and filtered ripple band trace of the LFP recorded in the home cage. c Representative SPW-Rs and raster plots of the units recorded during the same session as a. Black, blue, and red ticks indicate spikes of neither, mouse-A, and mouse-B neurons, respectively. d Mouse-A neurons (blue) had significantly elevated peak firing rates during SPW-Rs compared with the neither neurons (black). The horizontal red line indicates the time period where the firing rate was significantly different (P < 0.01, permutation test). The shaded areas signify the SEMs. e Comparison of firing rates at ripple peaks. neither cells (N): n = 48 cells, 12.2 ± 1.6 Hz; mouse-A cells (A): n = 23 cells, 21.3 ± 3.6 Hz; **P = 0.0037, Cohen’s d = 0.72, Student’s t test. f The fraction of SPW-Rs for which a cell fired at least one spike, averaged across all cells. **P = 0.0048, r = 0.33, Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Pairwise similarities of unit activities during SPW-Rs (g) and their statistical significance (h; permutation test). Note that units are sorted according to the social preferences plotted in a. Comparison of the online (i) and offline (j) activity similarity between N/N (n = 92) and A/A (n = 23) cell pairs. **P = 0.017, r = 0.22 and ***P = 0.0045, r = 0.26, Wilcoxon rank-sum test. k Correlations between online and offline activity similarity. **P = 0.0058, permutation test (Supplementary Fig. 4). l Quantitative measurement and comparison of the offline similarities at different threshold MUA factors between N/N (n = 92) and A/A (n = 23) cell pairs. Main effect of Group, F(1,103) = 19.4, P = 2.6 × 10−5, η2 = 0.022, partial η2 = 0.16, Group × Threshold, F(1,103) = 17.0, P = 7.6 × 10−5, η2 = 0.021, partial η2 = 0.14, two-way repeated measures ANOVA. ***P < 0.001, r = 0.25–0.41, Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison test.
