Vm SD for three different stimulus conditions is plotted as a function of simulated pairwise correlation between the LGN inputs in Figure S5C. At the correlation level measured in the LGN data (vertical dashed line, r = 0.25), the average values of peak Vm SDs for the model were comparable
to those obtained from intracellular recordings (1.32 mV versus 2.0 mV, 2.02 mV versus 2.6 mV, and 2.63 mV versus 3.8 mV for high-contrast null, high-contrast preferred, and low-contrast preferred stimuli). Changes in pairwise correlations between LGN inputs did not affect the increase in low-contrast preferred variability relative to high-contrast null variability: across all simulated values of pairwise correlations ranging from 0.05 to 0.70, low-contrast preferred variability Vismodegib solubility dmso was ∼120% more than high-contrast null variability (orange line in Figure S5C). For any excitatory Volasertib research buy synapse, the reversal potential (near 0 mV) dictates that a given increase in conductance starting from rest generates a much larger depolarization than
the same increase starting from a high baseline of synaptic input. We explored the effect of this saturating nonlinearity simply by removing it from model. In Figures 6G–6I, for example, where the relationship between LGN activity and Vm is assumed to be linear, the difference between low- and high-contrast Vm variability almost completely disappears, both at the preferred (G) and null orientations (H). Low-contrast preferred
stimuli, however, still evoked responses that were more variable than high-contrast null stimuli (I). The net effect of removing the conductance nonlinearity, then, is to remove the orientation-independence of Vm variability. Synaptic depression introduces a similar saturating relationship between the firing rate of LGN inputs and V1 membrane potential. Unlike the conductance Adenosine nonlinearity, however, when synaptic depression was removed from the model, only minor changes in Vm variability were observed (not shown)—compared to high-contrast stimuli, Vm SDs were 34% and 16% greater for preferred and null stimuli, and 88% greater for preferred low-contrast stimuli compared to null high-contrast stimuli. How these parameters interact in the model is diagrammed in Figure 7. Here again we highlight the responses at low and high contrast and preferred and null orientation (shaded rectangles in Figures 7B, 7D, 7F, and 7H). The first step of the model is to calculate the mean conductance change originating from the LGN, and its trial-to-trial variability, after taking the modulation of synaptic efficacy by synaptic depression into account. These are plotted (curves and error bars) for high and low contrast in Figures 7B and 7F, the curves showing the mean conductance change, and error bars showing variability.