Extended Data Fig. 5: Additional characterization of drifting gratings responses.

a. Head-fixed drifting gratings PETHs for gaze shift response clusters with mean response overlayed. Stimulus is presented for 1 s with gray ISI between stimuli. n = 9 mice, n = 384/716 cells responsive to gratings (early=71, late=96, biphasic=98, negative=29, unresponsive=90). Cells below firing rate threshold are not shown. b. Mean ± SEM normalized gratings PETHs clustered by gaze shift response for full stimulus presentation (top) and highlighting stimulus onset (bottom). c. Fraction of cells in each cluster with a ≥ 2:1 preference for the presented spatial frequencies compared to the sum of responses for the two other spatial frequencies. d. Mean ± SEM temporal frequency tuning curve by cluster (Multivariate two-way ANOVA, TF x cluster F = 21.45, p = 3.45e-13). e. Temporal frequency preference for gratings-responsive cells in each gaze shift response cluster, calculated as a weighted mean of responses (n = 9 mice, 384 cells). Median and standard error are shown for each cluster. Bars above indicate statistical significance at p < 0.05 (linear mixed effects model, n = 9 mice, n = 384 cells; early vs. late p = 3.64e-7, early vs. biphasic p = 2.24e-21, early vs. negative p = 4.42e-9, late vs. biphasic p = 2.32e-6, late vs. negative p = 5.69e-2, biphasic vs. negative p = 9.37e-2). f. Weighted temporal frequency preference versus gaze shift response latency, for all cells responsive to gratings. Running median ± SEM for all cells is overlaid. The color of each point indicates the cluster from gaze shift responses. (r = −0.468, p = 2.12e-16). g. Same as c for temporal frequency.