Extended Data Fig. 4: Place field fidelities do not strictly correlate with replay score. | Nature

Extended Data Fig. 4: Place field fidelities do not strictly correlate with replay score.

From: Retuning of hippocampal representations during sleep

Extended Data Fig. 4

(a) Distribution of replay scores in the different datasets calculating as percentile against time shuffled bins. Median scores for different epochs are shown with dashed lines (chance median score = 50; see Methods). (b) Ripple events were divided into quartiles according to replay score. Top panels show the place fields and sets of LTs calculated based on low and high quartile replay score events within PRE, MAZE, and POST. Bottom panels show population vector (PV) correlations between position bins in the PFs versus different sets of LTs. (c) Distribution of PF fidelity for each ripple subset. Median PF fidelities were significantly greater compared (one-sided) against surrogate distributions (from 104 unit identity shuffles, without multiple comparison corrections) in all subsets during MAZE and POST but not during PRE (PRE; P = 0.86, P = 0.67, P = 0.49, P = 0.06 for first to forth quartiles, respectively. MAZE and POST: P < 10−4 for all quartiles). (d) Place fields of participating units in replays show differing amounts of overlap with the decoded posteriors. Example events with high replay scores in PRE and POST, and low replay scores in POST showing posterior probability matrices and corresponding spike rasters of units sorted by place field order. The middle row depicts the mean correlation of the participating units’ place fields with the decoding posterior in each time bin. The bottom panels show the place fields and decoded positions of participating units for example time bins. Note that even bins with poor place-field coherence display sharp posteriors, because of the multiplication rule in Bayes formula, whereby spatial tunings of participating units are multiplied by each other. (e) Mean posterior correlation of PFs and decoded positions show increased place-field overlap in both low and high score replays in POST compared to PRE. Low and high replay score events in PRE did not differ significantly (PRE low versus high: P = 0.36; POST low versus high: P = 1.8 × 10−66; POST high versus PRE high: P = 1.1 × 10−282; POST low versus PRE high: P = 1.1 × 10−59; two-sided Mann Whitney U Test). ***P < 0.001.

Back to article page