Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Delay-Dependent Response in Weakly Electric Fish under Closed-Loop Pulse Stimulation

Fig 2

Fish response depends on the closed-loop stimulus time delay.

IPI distributions of 4 different experiments are shown for control (dashed lines) and closed-loop stimulation sessions (solid lines), each panel represents the data of a single fish subjected to a single delay for 30 min, the IPIs used to build the histograms were defined in Fig 1B. Top-left–For the stimulus session with time delay d = 10 ms (full line) fish increased the discharges of shorter IPIs, specially around 60 ms IPIs and decreased the probability of firing longer IPIs (> 300 ms) when compared to those of the control session (dashed line). There were also changes in the overall shape of the IPI distribution (50% Pearson's corr., Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) p = 0.004). Bottom-left–When stimulated with pulses with time delay d = 12 ms (solid line), fish shortened its IPIs from 5 ms to 200 ms, that is, there was an increase in the frequency of the electric organ as compared to those for the control session (dashed line). For longer IPIs (>200ms) no changes were observed between control and stimulus sessions, i.e., the shape of the IPI distribution remained the same in both sessions with a shift of ~20 ms (52% Pearson's corr., KS p = 0.07). Top-right–For the time delay d = 102 ms (full line), fish increased the probability of firing shorter IPIs of ~20 ms and also longer IPIs (> 300 ms), and decreased the probability of discharging IPIs around 140 ms as compared to those of the control session (dashed line). There were slight changes in the shape of the IPI distribution (89% Pearson's corr. KS p = 0.8). Bottom-right—For stimulus session with time delay d = 172 ms (solid line), fish discharged with high probability 140 ms IPIs and 300 ms IPIs and the shape of the IPI distribution did not change (97% Pearson's corr. KS p = 0.4).

Fig 2

doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141007.g002