Statistical table
| Results | Data structure | Type of test | Sample size | CI/p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fig. 1B: correlation between CFC strength and impedance | Assumed normal distribution of the errors | Pearson correlation tested using t test | n = 80 electrodes of 1 animal over 5 sessions | ρ = –0.255 p = 0.0224 |
| Fig. 1C: impedance values for two different sizes of electrodes | Assumed normal distribution | Independent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 20 single wires and 60 tetrode wires electrodes of 1 animal over 5 sessions | CI95 = [1072;1672] Cohen’s d = 2.7 p = 7.0773 × 10−14 |
| Fig. 1C: CFC strength for two different sizes of electrodes | Assumed normal distribution | Independent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 20 single wires and 60 tetrode wires electrodes of 1 animal over 5 sessions | CI95 = [0.9; 5.8] × 10−3 Cohen’s d = 0.6 p = 0.007 |
| Fig. 3A: comodulograms were compared to a surrogate distribution obtained by randomly splitting and inverting the amplitude time series | Assumed nonnormal distribution | Surrogate test | 200 surrogates for each channel | Each x–y entry was set to zero (dark blue color) if observed p > 0; otherwise, the original value was kept. |
| Fig. 5C: LG power comparison for aWK and REM sleep | Assumed normal distribution | Dependent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 7 animals (mean across electrodes) | CI95 = [–1.3; 2.73]; Cohen’s d = 0.33; p = 0.42 |
| Fig. 5C: HG power comparison for aWK and REM sleep | Assumed normal distribution | Dependent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 7 animals (mean across electrodes) | CI95 = [–0.39; 1.1]; Cohen’s d = 0.44; p = 0.29 |
| Fig. 5C: HFO power comparison for aWK and REM sleep. | Assumed normal distribution | Dependent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 7 animals (mean across electrodes) | CI95 = [0.15; 0.58]; Cohen’s d = 1.57; p = 0.006 |
| Fig. 5C: Theta–LG coupling strength comparison for aWK and REM sleep | Assumed normal distribution | Dependent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 7 animals (mean across electrodes) | CI95 = [–0.22; 0.11] × 10−3; Cohen’s d = 0.31; p = 0.45 |
| Fig. 5C: Theta–HG coupling strength comparison for aWK and REM sleep | Assumed normal distribution | Dependent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 7 animals (mean across electrodes) | CI95 = [0.03; 2.14] × 10−3; Cohen’s d = 0.95 p = 0.045 |
| Fig. 5C: Theta–HFO coupling strength comparison for aWK and REM sleep | Assumed normal distribution | Dependent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 7 animals (mean across electrodes) | CI95 = [3; 10.8] × 10−3; Cohen’s d = 1.64; p = 0.005 |
| Fig. 5D: Theta power comparison for aWK and REM sleep | Assumed normal distribution | Dependent t test; t-based confidence intervals for the mean | n = 7 animals (mean across electrodes) | CI95 = [0.11; 0.2]; Cohen’s d = 3.19; p = 1.52 × 10−4 |