Extended Data Fig. 11: Comparison between non-oscillatory LFP and wing-beat phase locking of hippocampal neurons. | Nature

Extended Data Fig. 11: Comparison between non-oscillatory LFP and wing-beat phase locking of hippocampal neurons.

From: Replay and representation dynamics in the hippocampus of freely flying bats

Extended Data Fig. 11: Comparison between non-oscillatory LFP and wing-beat phase locking of hippocampal neurons.The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

a, Mean power of the non-oscillatory LFP (Methods) during non-flight versus flight epochs. The box plot shows the maximum and minimum values (whiskers), median (centre line) and the 25th to 75th percentiles (box limits) across sessions (two-sided p = 4e-5, n = 22 sessions from 6 bats, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). b, Top, spike-triggered LFP, computed as the mean of the single-session spike-triggered LFP traces (n = 22 sessions from 6 bats) for all the spikes emitted during non-flight (black) versus flight (purple). Shaded areas represent s.e.m. Middle: Same as above, but for the spike-triggered wing-beat. Bottom: Same as above but only including spikes from phase-locked neurons (n = 22 sessions from 6 bats; Methods). c, Average decoding error (Methods) aligned to either the wing-beat phase (orange bar) or the non-oscillatory LFP phase (purple bar) and normalized to a shuffled distribution (two-sided P = 0.044 Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n = 4,546 wing-beat cycles versus 4,393 LFP cycles from 643 flights, 6 bats). Bars indicate the mean, error bars are s.e.m.

Back to article page