kness of the recording environment. Visually, the individual place fields from T305D mice appear to be normal; the complex spike neurons in the hippocampal CA1 of the mutants also displayed place-dependent increases in firing rates. Neuronal firing rates over whole MedChemExpress TAK-632 sessions did not differ either. Although there was a slight tendency for increased firing rates in T305D mice, this did not reach statistical significance. In-field firing rate of the place fields measured was defined as the average firing rate in position pixels within the firing field. The firing field pixels, in turn, were defined as those pixels for which the firing rate of the cell was higher than the average firing rate of the cell. The mean in-field firing rates did not differ significantly between mutants and WT littermates. Spatial selectivity is the measure of the degree of the elevation of in-field firing rate as compared to firing outside of the field. Average spatial selectivity of place fields was also not significantly different between T305D and WT CA1 Place Cell Spiking in aCaMKIIT305D Mutant Mice mice throughout all sessions recorded. When only burst spikes were used to calculate selectivity, we confirmed that there is no significant difference between groups. Decreased Spatial Coherence and Information in Place Fields of T305D mice Although the gross firing characteristics of cell spiking seemed normal and similar to WT, T305D mice showed on average significantly larger place fields than those in WT mice. The place maps of 
T305D mice also showed higher pixel-topixel variability as measured by spatial coherence. Spatial coherence is a way to quantify the local smoothness of a place field surface. Spatial coherence of a place cell is defined as the correlation between firing rate of a position pixel and the average firing rate over its 8 neighboring pixels. PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22188681 For cells with high spatial coherence, firing rates of most position pixels are highly correlated with its neighbors, and consequently the cellfiring rate over a given spatial location is usually smooth. On the other hand, with a low spatial coherence, firing rates at nearby locations are uncorrelated and the firing rate map is highly variable from position to position. Spatial coherence was significantly lower in T305D mice than in WT littermates. In addition, we measured spatial information that provided us with information about animal’s current position predicted by firing rate, as follows, I~ l log2 x also showed differences between mutants and controls. The results indicate that WT place fields were far less affected by small environmental changes, than T305D place fields. In another words, the place fields of mutant mice were more prone to remapping than those of controls. Nevertheless, we found that the similarity of place cells in the mutants was significantly higher than two randomly picked pairs of place cells, indicating that T305D place cells do not completely remap after the end of each session. Differences in Cue Dependency of Place Fields To further study place field stability across recording sessions, we rotated place fields of one of the sessions being compared until we found the maximum similarity between the two sessions for the same cell. With a completely stable place field, we would expect that the maximum similarity would be obtained with zero rotation of one of the place fields. Cells with a higher amount of required rotation for maximizing similarity may be deemed less stable. Ev
