Supplementry Figure (nesthetized) (wke) Normlized mplitude.5 Pek width (ms).6.4.2 4 2 2 x 3 Wveform slope Normlized mplitude.5 Pek width (ms).6.4.2 x 3 3 2 Wveform slope c (nesthetized) d (wke) Normlized mplitude.5 Pek width (ms).6.4.2 4 2 Wveform slope x 3 Normlized mplitude.5 Pek width (ms).6.4.2 x 3 3 2 Wveform slope e f g h Pek width (ms) i N.S..6.4.2 PV SOM End slope PV 2 4 x 4 N.S. 4 3 2 < 3 5 > Rte (spikes s - ) SOM Rte (spikes s - ) 2 2 4 3 2 *** Rte (spikes s - ) 2 *** N.S. * Brod Nrrow Brod Nrrow < 3 5 Rte (spikes s - ) Supplementry Figure. Effect of photo stimultion on rod-spiking nd nrrow-spiking neurons. () Left, verge spike wveforms for ll units in the experiments of from nesthetized mice. The wveforms were ligned to minimum nd normlized y trough depth. Right, sctter plot of spike wveform prmeters for ll units. Green, nrrow-spiking; ornge, rod-spiking. () Spike wveforms for ll units in the experiments of from wke mice. Sme s descried in (). (c) Spike wveforms for ll units in the experiments of from nesthetized mice. (d) Spike wveforms for ll units in the experiments of from wke mice. (e) The pek width of spike wveform ws not significntly different etween rod-spiking cells in PV nd experiments (P =.39, n = 26 nd 76, Wilcoxon rnk-sum test). (f) The end slope of spike wveform ws not significntly different etween rod-spiking cells in PV nd SOM suppression experiments (P =.6, Wilcoxon rnk-sum test). (g) -induced chnge in movie-evoked firing rte for rod-spiking (P =. -9, n = 26 from oth nesthetized nd wke mice, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test) nd nrrow-spiking cells (P =.4, n = 48 from oth nesthetized nd wke mice, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). (h) -induced chnge in movie-evoked firing rte for rod-spiking (P = 9. -3, n = 76, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test) nd nrrow-spiking cells (P =.2, n = 33, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). (i) Distriution of chnge in spontneous firing rte of rod-spiking cells for (left) nd (right) experiments. The distriutions were not significntly different etween PV nd experiments (P =.66, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). Error rs, ± s.e.m. ***, P <.. *, P <.5.
Supplementry Figure 2 Moderte light intensity High light intensity 2 s 2 mv Supplementry Figure 2. Effect of photo stimultion on spontneous locl field potentil (LFP). () LFP responses during. Moderte nd high light intensities were used for the upper 5 nd lower 5 trces, respectively. Note tht high light intensity induced epileptiform ctivity, which ws voided in our experiments. () LFP responses during, sme s descried in (). Green re, photo stimultion.
Supplementry Figure 3 2 ms c d ms 2 ms 3 ms CC ().4.2.6.4.2.6.4.2.6.4.2.2.4.2.4.6.2.4.6.2.4.6 CC ().4.2.6.4.2.6.4.2.6.4.2.2.4.2.4.6.2.4.6.2.4.6 Supplementry Figure 3. Between-tril correltion coefficient mesured t different in sizes. () Summry of CCs with nd without photo stimultion for responses inned t 2 ms. Upper,, P = 8.7-2, n = 26; lower,, P =.9, n = 76, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test. () Sme s descried in () except tht the responses were inned t ms. P = 2.6 - for nd P =.72 for. (c) Sme s descried in () except tht the responses were inned t 2 ms. P =.4 - for nd P =.48 for. (d) Sme s descried in () except tht the responses were inned t 3 ms. P =.6-8 for nd P =.24 for. Error rs, ± s.e.m.
Supplementry Figure 4 c Firing rte (Hz, light) 3 2 2 3 Firing rte (Hz, control) CC (light).4.2.2.4 Sprseness (light).5.5 Sprseness (control) Supplementry Figure 4. Photo stimultion itself hs no effect on visul responses of control mice in which virus ws not injected. () Firing rtes of V neurons recorded from PV-Cre mice in response to nturl movies with nd without photo stimultion (n = 5 cells from 2 experiments, P =.98, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). () Summry of etween-tril correltion coefficient with nd without photo stimultion for responses inned t the stimulus frme rte (P =.36, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). (c) Summry of response sprseness with nd without photo stimultion (P =.39, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). Error rs, ± s.e.m.
Supplementry Figure 5 25 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 > Rte chnge (%) 4 5 5 > Rte chnge (%) 25 3 2 2 5 5 c 4 8 2 6 >2 Evoked rte (spikes s - ) 5 4 8 2 6 >2 Evoked rte (spikes s - ) 3 4 3 2..2.3.4.5 25 2 5 5..2.3.4.5 Supplementry Figure 5. Comprison of response properties etween rod-spiking cells in PV nd SOM suppression experiments. () Distriutions of percent chnge in the evoked firing rte were not significntly different etween cells in PV nd experiments (P =.2, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). () Distriutions of firing rte during control trils were not significntly different etween cells in PV nd SOM suppression experiments (P =.89, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). (c) Distriutions of CC (for responses inned t the stimulus frme rte) during control trils were not significntly different etween cells in PV nd experiments (P =.32, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). n = 26 nd 76 for PV nd experiments, respectively.
Supplementry Figure 6 4 3 2 CC (photo stimultion).6.4.2.3.2...2.2.4.6 2 5 5 CC (photo stimultion).6.4.2 <.3.2...2.2.4.6 Supplementry Figure 6. Comprison of the effects of PV nd on CC. () Left, the distriutions of ΔCC were significntly different etween PV nd experiments (P =. -7, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). Tringles represent the men vlues of the distriutions. Right, line ws fitted to the CCs with nd without photo stimultion for PV nd experiments, respectively. The slopes of the lines were significntly different etween PV nd experiments (P = 2.8-6, ANCOVA). n = 26 nd 76 for PV nd experiments, respectively. The CCs were computed from the responses inned t the stimulus frme rte. () Sme s descried in () except tht the responses were inned t 2 ms. Left, P = 3.2-4 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Right, P = 2. -4, ANCOVA.
Supplementry Figure 7 CC ().6.4.2.2.4.6 CC ().6.4.2.2.4.6 c CC (photo stimultion).6.4.2.2.4.6 CC (Control) d 4 3 2.5.3...3 e CC ().6.4.2.2.4.6 f CC ().6.4.2.2.4.6 g CC (photo stimultion).6.4.2.2.4.6 h 4 3 2.5.3...3 CC (Control) Supplementry Figure 7. Comprison of CCs fter spike rte equliztion. () CCs for, in size = 2 ms. After spike rte equliztion, the CCs with remined significntly smller thn those without (P = 2. -4, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). () CCs for, in size = 2 ms. After spike rte equliztion, the CCs with were significntly lrger thn those without SOM suppression (P = 4.9-4, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). (c) Comprison of the effects of PV nd on CC (in size = 2 ms) computed fter spike rte equliztion. A line ws fitted to the CCs with nd without photo stimultion for PV nd experiments, respectively. The slopes of the lines were significntly different etween PV nd experiments (P = 2. -5, ANCOVA). (d) The distriutions of ΔCC (in size = 2 ms) were significntly different etween PV nd experiments (P = 4.5-6, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). Tringles represent the men vlues of the distriutions. (e) Sme s descried in () except tht in size = 3 ms. P = 3.4-4, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test. (f) Sme s descried in () except tht in size = 3 ms. P =.7, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test. (g) Sme s descried in (c) except tht in size = 3 ms. P = 5. -4, ANCOVA. (h) Sme s descried in (d) except tht in size = 3 ms. P =.2-4, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Error rs, ± s.e.m. n = 26 nd 76 for PV nd experiments, respectively.
Supplementry Figure 8 Lyer Lyer 9 2 29 S Depth (um) 3 4 5 S G Depth (um) 39 49 59 G I 6 I 69 sink 7 79 8 89 source 5 5 5 5 Suprgrnulr Grnulr Infrgrnulr.6 CC ().4.2 CC ().4.2 CC ().4.2.2.4.2.4.2.4.6 c Suprgrnulr Grnulr Infrgrnulr.6 CC ().4.2.2.4 CC ().4.2.2.4 CC ().4.2.2.4.6 Supplementry Figure 8. Lminr distriution of the effect of photo suppression on response reliility. () Corticl lyers identified y CSD nlysis. The two CSD profiles were mesured using the sme electrode t two different corticl depths. Left, mesured t depth of 8 μm for the electrode tip. Right, mesured t depth of 89 μm for the electrode tip. Blck trces, LFP responses t different recording sites evoked y flsh stimuli. S, suprgrnulr; G, grnulr, I: Infrgrnulr. () Summry of CCs (for responses inned t the stimulus frme rte) with nd without for neurons recorded in different lyers (P = 2.2-4, 4.5-5, nd 9.8-4, n = 26, 35, nd 25 for suprgrnulr, grnulr, nd infrgrnulr lyer, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). (c) Summry of CCs with nd without for neurons recorded in different lyers (P =.83,.9, nd.45, n = 7,, nd 45 for suprgrnulr, grnulr, nd infrgrnulr lyer, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test).
Supplementry Figure 9 SNR Rte (spikes s - ) c d Anesthetized 2 - -2-3 Non-event Event -. -.2-5 - -5 5 Event rte (spikes s - ) -. -.2 5 Non-event rte (spikes s - ) -.2 -.4-5 - -5 5 Event rte (spikes s - ) Rte (spikes s - ) SNR - -2-3 -.5 -. -.5 -..2. -. -.2 Awke Non-event Event - -5 5 Event rte (spikes s - ) 2 4 Non-event rte (spikes s - ) - -5 5 Event rte (spikes s - ) Supplementry Figure 9. Effect of on the firing rtes of events nd non-events. () PV suppression significntly incresed the responses of non-events (P = 5.7-6 nd 3.4-5, n = 98 nd 28 for nesthetized nd wke mice) nd decresed the responses of events (P =.2-8 nd.2 for nesthetized nd wke mice). Error rs, ± s.e.m. () ΔCC versus chnge in event firing rte (defined s event rte with PV suppression minus tht without ) (r =.6, P = 5.9 - for nesthetized mice, r =.75, P = 5.2-6 for wke mice). (c) ΔCC versus chnge in non-event firing rte (defined s non-event rte with PV suppression minus tht without ) (r =.2, P =.84 for nesthetized mice, r =., P =.63 for wke mice). (d) ΔSNR versus chnge in event firing rte (r =.87, P =.3-3 for nesthetized mice, r =.88, P = 7.5 - for wke mice). ***, P <.. *, P <.5.
Supplementry Figure 4 3 2.4.2.2.4 SNR Supplementry Figure. Comprison of the effects of PV nd on the chnge in SNR. The distriutions of ΔSNR were significntly different etween PV nd experiments (P = 9.8-9, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). n = 26 nd 76 for PV nd experiments, respectively. Tringles represent the men vlues of the distriutions.
Supplementry Figure.5.5 4 FF 4 FF.5.5 FF () 3 2 FF () 3 2 2 3 4 FF (control) 2 3 4 FF (control) Supplementry Figure. PV ut not increses Fno fctor (FF) of the event responses. () Summry of FF with nd without (P =., n = 26, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). () Summry of FF with nd without (P =.76, n = 76, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test). The histogrm shows the distriution of ΔFF (computed s FF with photo stimultion minus tht without photo stimultion). The distriutions of ΔFF were significntly different etween PV nd experiments (P =.4, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). n = 26 nd 76 for PV nd experiments, respectively. Error rs, ± s.e.m.
Supplementry Figure 2 Spikes s - 6 4 2 Control 2 4 6 4 Spikes s - 2 2 4 6 Spikes s - 8 4 2 3 Time (s) Rte (spikes s - ) 5 ** ** 5 ** < 2 >2 Rte (spikes s - ) Supplementry Figure 2. Chnges of event responses for nrrow-spiking cells in experiments. () Exmple PSTHs of nrrow-spiking cells. Blck, control; Blue,. Dshed line: 25% of the mximum response of the control PSTH. () The decreses in event rtes were 2.4±.5, 3.4±., nd.7±2. spikes/s (s.e.m., P = 4.9-4,.4, nd 5.3-4, Wilcoxon signed-rnk test) for cells whose event rtes during control trils were <, -2, nd >2 spikes/s (n = 2, 2, nd 6), respectively. **, P <..
Supplementry Figure 3 PC2 PC Supplementry Figure 3. Spikes detected t the time of the experiment were sorted offline with the Offline Sorter (Plexon Inc.) using cluster nlysis of principl component mplitudes. Left, spike wveforms of two exmple units. The lck nd red thick lines re the verge spike wveforms for the two units, respectively. Right, the scores of the first two principl components of the wveform shpe for the two units.