Comparison of features corresponding to the shape of transient response in the SNr before and after increasing the excitability of D2-SPNs in PD-biphasic and PD-triphasic states
PD-biphasic (same as Table 11) | PD-biphasic | PD-triphasic (same as Table 11) | PD-triphasic | |
---|---|---|---|---|
EE | ||||
Latency (ms) | 7.0 ± 0, 6.92 ± 0.56 | 7.0 ± 0, 7.0 ± 0.0 | 7.0 ± 0, 6.99 ± 0.10 | 7.0 ± 0, 7.0 ± 0.0 |
Duration (ms) | 21.98 ± 0.14, 21.82 ± 0.74 | 22.18 ± 0.38, 22.21 ± 0.43 | 5.0 ± 0, 4.98 ± 0.20 | 4.05 ± 0.21, 4.2 ± 0.40 |
70.77 ± 1.32, 70.76 ± 2.42 | 76.19 ± 1.24, 76.6 ± 2.34 | 169.95 ± 2.32, 169.87 ± 4.49 | 165.9 ± 2.19, 165.52 ± 4.59 | |
EI | *ND | *ND | ||
Latency (ms) | 12.0 ± 0, 11.97 ± 0.17 | 11.05 ± 0.21, 11.2 ± 0.4 | ||
Duration (ms) | 4.0 ± 0, 4.03 ± 0.17 | 4.95 ± 0.21, 4.8 ± 0.4 | ||
−13.23 ± 0.40, −13.43 ± 0.70 | −15.55 ± 0.44, −15.7 ± 0.74 | |||
LE | ## | ## | ||
Latency (ms) | 16.0 ± 0, 16.0 ± 0 | 16.0 ± 0, 16.0 ± 0 | ||
Duration (ms) | 12.0 ± 0, 12.0 ± 0 | 12.0 ± 0, 12.0 ± 0 | ||
145.94 ± 1.39, 146.01 ± 2.82 | 149.65 ± 1.23, 150.27 ± 2.59 | |||
LI | ||||
Latency (ms) | 28.98 ± 0.14, 28.74 ± 0.44 | 29.18 ± 0.38, 29.21 ± 0.43 | 28.0 ± 0, 28.0 ± 0 | 28.0 ± 0, 28.0 ± 0 |
Duration (ms) | 34.45 ± 0.5, 34.77 ± 0.73 | 33.3 ± 0.61, 33.34 ± 0.6 | 31.16 ± 0.36, 31.40 ± 0.49 | 30.6 ± 0.46, 30.6 ± 0.55 |
−24.26 ± 0.22, −24.28 ± 0.39 | −24.98 ± 0.28, −25.14 ± 0.41 | −19.79 ± 0.27, −20.1 ± 0.52 | −22.59 ± 0.29, −22.52 ± 0.53 |
Column 1 and column 3 are taken from Table 11. Here, the variations in the features were obtained using multiple observations (100 in number) of the simulation output. In each observation, 50% and 20% of SNr neurons were randomly chosen whose results are shown in bold and italic, respectively. ##: Statistics for EE in PD-biphasic are given for the complete excitatory response comprising of both EE and LE. In this case, the EI was not detectable using statistical test, hence the two excitations (EE and LE) were merged during computation of the parameters. Here,