Extended Data Fig. 5: Firing rate differences between CW and CCW revolution direction.

a, Percentage of tuned responses as a function of the absolute preferred angle, for bidirectional and unidirectional populations are significantly different from each other (KS-test p = 0.04). b, Firing rate modulation index for uni-directional cells inside preferred zone was significantly different from zero (t-test, p = 4.1 x 10⁻³⁵), but not outside (p = 0.35). c, Correlation coefficient of CCW and CW responses for different populations of cells, (KS-test green, bidirectional, p = 3.3 x 10⁻²⁷, orange, unidirectional p = 7.0 x 10⁻²⁷, lavender, untuned stable, p = 4.4 x 10⁻⁴). Dashed curves indicate respective shuffles. d, Firing rate of unidirectional cells in tuned versus untuned directions shows significantly higher (KS-test p =  7.9 x 10⁻⁹) firing rates in the tuned direction. e, Same as d, for bidirectional cells showing higher firing rate (KS-test, p = 2.4 x 10⁻¹⁸) in the revolution direction with better tuning. f, Cumulative histogram of ratio between firing rate in untuned to tuned direction was less than one for 67% of cells. g, Same as f, but for bidirectional cells (other/better since both directions are tuned) showing 65% of firing rate ratios were less than one. h, To remove the contribution of firing rate to sparsity, the strength of tuning (z-score sparsity) difference was computed with spike thinning procedures (similar to Extended Data Fig. 6; see Methods) ensuring equal firing rate in both directions. The difference in tuning strength (z-scored sparsity) was not significantly correlated with firing rate ratio for unidirectional (r = −0.09 p = 0.16) as well as (i) bidirectional (r = 0.005 p = 0.95) populations. For bi-directionally tuned cells, aVEVS with higher z-scored sparsity was labeled as the “better” response, and the aVEVS with lower z-scored sparsity was called “other” response. All correlations were computed as Pearson correlation coefficients.