001). There was a significant difference
in response latencies to the various facial photos as well (Fig. 8C). The mean response latency to the frontal faces (62.67 ± 1.49 ms) was significantly shorter than that to Selumetinib molecular weight the profile faces (66.00 ± 1.73 ms; paired t-test, P < 0.01). Figure 9 shows response magnitudes in four different epochs of the same neuron shown in Fig. 4. In epoch 1, during the first 50-ms period (Fig. 9A), this neuron showed strong responses to the face-like patterns; three of the face-like patterns (J1, 2, 4) elicited stronger responses than stimuli from the other categories, and the remaining face-like pattern (J3) elicited stronger responses than stimuli from the other categories, except for seven stimuli (Tukey test after one-way anova, P < 0.05). Furthermore, the most face-like patterns (J1) elicited stronger responses than the other face-like patterns (J2, 3, 4; Tukey tests after one-way anova, P < 0.05). In epoch 2, during the second 50-ms period, from 50 to 100 ms after stimulus onset (Fig. 9B), all of the visual stimuli elicited click here significant excitatory responses (WSR
test, P < 0.05). Furthermore, the neuron responded differentially to gaze direction in M2, M3 and W1 (dotted lines; Tukey tests, P < 0.05) and to face orientations in W2 (solid lines; Tukey test, P < 0.05). In epoch 3, during the third 50-ms period, from 100 to 150 ms after stimulus onset (Fig. 9C), only one cartoon face elicited inhibitory responses, while most other stimuli elicited excitatory responses (WSR test, P < 0.05). Furthermore, the neuron responded differentially to gaze direction in W1 and W2 (dotted lines; Tukey tests, P < 0.05). In epoch 10, during the last 50-ms period, from
450 to 500 ms after stimulus onset (Fig. 9D), the face-like patterns elicited stronger responses than some other stimuli. These findings suggest that neuronal responses to visual stimuli were different in different epochs. Figure 10 shows the mean response magnitudes of the 68 visually responsive neurons in four different epochs. The data again revealed N-acetylglucosamine-1-phosphate transferase similar trends. In epoch 1, the face-like patterns elicited stronger responses than the other visual stimuli (Tukey test after one-way anova, P < 0.01). In epoch 2, response magnitudes to all visual stimuli increased; the mean response magnitude to each stimulus was significantly larger than in epoch 1 (paired t-test, P < 0.05). These results suggest that pulvinar neurons are more sensitive to visual stimuli in epoch 2. These changes in responsiveness were not uniform across the various visual stimuli at the single neuron level; the neurons displayed differential responses to these stimuli. Figure 11A shows the number of differential neurons (one-way anova, P < 0.05) in each epoch. The number of differential neurons was significantly higher in epoch 2 than in epoch 1 (Fisher’s exact probability test, P < 0.001).