(Downloading may take up to 30 seconds.
If the slide opens in your browser, select File -> Save As to save it.)
Click on image to view larger version.
Figure 3. Parametric features of CBI-4-elicited motor programs. A, Comparison of CBI-4-elicited programs with or without a second B8 burst. Regardless of whether a second B8 burst was absent or present, the duration of both protraction and retraction (excluding hyper-retraction) was similar in ingestive (protraction: 3.4 ± 0.3 sec, n = 29, vs 3.4 ± 0.2 sec, n = 35, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.7, p > 0.05; retraction: 4.0 ± 0.2 sec, n = 29, vs 4.7 ± 0.3 sec, n = 35, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.6, p > 0.05), egestive (protraction: 10.5 ± 0.7 sec, n = 19, vs 9.8 ± 0.5 sec, n = 34, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 1.0, p > 0.05; retraction, 7.0 ± 0.3 sec, n = 19, vs 7.1 ± 0.3 sec, n = 34, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.1, p > 0.05), or intermediate (protraction: 8.4 ± 0.9 sec, n = 13, vs 7.0 ± 1.0 sec, n = 12, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 1.2, p > 0.05; retraction: 7.5 ± 0.8 sec, n = 13, vs 7.4 ± 1.3 sec, n = 12, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.02, p > 0.05) programs. In addition, regardless of whether a second B8 burst was absent or present, B8 firing frequency during protraction and retraction was similar in ingestive (protraction: 1.03 ± 0.1 Hz, n = 29, vs 1.04 ± 0.1 Hz, n = 35, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.4, p > 0.05; retraction: 6.6 ± 0.3 Hz, n = 29, vs 7.4 ± 0.3 Hz, n = 35, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 1.7, p > 0.05), egestive (protraction: 5.8 ± 0.3 Hz, n = 19, vs 5.7 ± 0.2 Hz, n = 34, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.4, p > 0.05; retraction: 1.8 ± 0.15 Hz, n = 19, vs 1.7 ± 0.15 Hz, n = 34, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.03, p > 0.05), or intermediate (protraction: 3.3 ± 0.3 Hz, n = 13, vs 3.4 ± 0.4 Hz, n = 12, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 0.5, p > 0.05; retraction: 4.2 ± 0.4 Hz, n = 13, vs 4.9 ± 0.5 Hz, n = 12, unpaired two-tailed t test, t = 1.8, p > 0.05) programs. The duration of hyper-retraction was similar during ingestive (4.7 ± 0.2 sec; n = 35), intermediate (5.2 ± 0.8 sec; n = 12), or egestive (5.5 ± 0.4 sec; n = 34) motor programs (one-way ANOVA; F(2,78) = 1.4; p > 0.05). In contrast, B8 firing frequency was higher (9.7 ± 0.5 Hz; n = 35) in ingestive programs, lower (8.1 ± 0.9 Hz; n = 12) in intermediate programs, and lowest (7.0 ± 0.4 Hz; n = 34) in egestive programs [one-way ANOVA; F(2,78) = 7.9; p < 0.001; a Bonferroni multiple comparisons test of the three different group pairs showed significant difference between B8 firing frequency in ingestive programs and that in egestive programs (t = 4.0; p < 0.001), no significant difference between that in ingestive programs and that in intermediate programs (t = 1.6; p > 0.05), and between that in intermediate programs and that in egestive programs (t = 1.1; p > 0.05)]. B, Comparison of protraction duration in CBI-4- and CBI-2-elicited programs. Data for CBI-4-elicited programs with or without a second B8 burst were pooled. In CBI-4-elicited motor programs, the average protraction duration was shortest (3.4 ± 0.2 sec; n = 64) when programs were ingestive, longer (7.7 ± 0.5 sec; n = 25) when programs were intermediate, and longest (10.1 ± 0.4 sec; n = 53) when programs were egestive [one-way ANOVA; F(2,144) = 124.1; p < 0.0001; a Bonferroni multiple comparisons test of the three different group pairs showed significant difference among all group pairs (p < 0.001)]. In contrast, the reverse was true for CBI-2-elicited motor programs. The average protraction duration was longest (17.9 ± 2.1 sec; n = 19) when programs were ingestive, shorter (14.3 ± 1.2 sec; n = 4) when programs were intermediate, and shortest (8.2 ± 0.8 sec; n = 19) when programs were egestive [one-way ANOVA; F(2,39) = 37.7; p < 0.0001; a Bonferroni multiple comparisons test of the three different group pairs showed significant difference between protraction duration in ingestive programs and that in egestive programs (t = 8.6; p < 0.001) and between that in intermediate programs and that in egestive programs (t = 3.1; p < 0.05), but no significant difference between that in ingestive programs and that in intermediate programs (t = 1.9; p > 0.05)]. Ing, Ingestive; Int, intermediate; Ege, egestive. Error bars represent SEM.
