Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Cyberkinetics microelectrode array and example waveforms. A, The array, closeup, and perspective with a penny. B, Examples of sorted waveforms and SNRs from three representative channels and one channel of noise.
- Figure 2.
Response properties. A, Orientation tuning curves for 16 example neurons in response to a sinusoidal grating drifting in 12 different directions. The grating was fixed at a spatial frequency of 1.3 cycles/degree, temporal frequency of 6.25 Hz, size of 8°, and duration of 1.28 s with 1.5 s between stimuli. B, STRFs generated with reverse correlation of responses to white-noise stimuli for the same 16 neurons.
- Figure 3.
SNRs in the four preparations. A, B, Macaque array SNR (A) tended to be lower than single-electrode SNR (B; two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness-of-fit hypothesis test, p < 0.0001). C, D, Similarly, cat array SNR (C) was lower than single-electrode SNR (D; p = 0.046). Finally, there was a trend for recordings in cats to have higher SNRs than recordings in the macaques for single electrodes (p = 0.10) and arrays (p < 0.0001). All SNR values were computed from the waveforms over ∼1 h of recording time.
- Figure 4.
Stability of SNR. Here we show the log (SNR) values for a continuous 29 h recording session from one array implant. The cells here are sorted in decreasing order by average SNR value across time. The plot above shows the average SNR across all cells for each hour (error bars are ±1 SEM).
