Variance of spike rate explained by previous trial types
| Tactile task (delay 1.2 s) | Auditory task (delay 1.2 s) | Auditory task (delay 2.0 s) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direction | 0.44% (1.9 e−3 ∼ 3.9%) | 0.30% (3.2 e−5 ∼ 4.1%) | 0.41% (6.4 e−4 ∼ 6.2%) |
| Performance | 0.74% (2.3 e−3 ∼ 9.7%) | 0.36% (3.3 e−4 % ∼ 7.8%) | 0.80% (9.0 e−4 ∼ 12.5%) |
| Optogenetic manipulation | 0.17% (5.1 e−4 ∼ 2.2%) | 0.031% (0 ∼ 2.4%) | 0.21% (3.7 e−4 ∼ 2.6%) |
| All variance together (sum of top 3 rows and interactions) | 2.2% (0.48 ∼ 16.9%) | 1.2% (0.34 ∼ 14.3%) | 2.2% (0.59 ∼ 17.8%) |
Variance of spike rates in the presample epoch explained by previous trial. We performed multifactor two-way ANOVA to test whether direction, performance, optogenetic manipulation, and their interactions affected the spike rate in each pyramidal cell. The median (top) and 95% range (bottom, 2.5 ∼ 97.5%) of the variance explained are shown in the table. The remaining variance is unexplained by previous trial type. Consistent with the effect of previous trials on behavior (Table 2), performance of the previous trial affected the spike rates the most, while the optogenetic manipulation affected the spike rates the least.