Review



two-dimensional gaussian fit  (GraphPad Software Inc)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    GraphPad Software Inc two-dimensional gaussian fit
    Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a <t>Gaussian</t> function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).
    Two Dimensional Gaussian Fit, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two-dimensional gaussian fit/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two-dimensional gaussian fit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Visual responses in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus at early stages of retinal degeneration in rd 1 PDE6β mice"

    Article Title: Visual responses in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus at early stages of retinal degeneration in rd 1 PDE6β mice

    Journal: Journal of Neurophysiology

    doi: 10.1152/jn.00231.2019

    Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a Gaussian function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a Gaussian function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).

    Techniques Used: Whisker Assay



    Similar Products

    two dimensional (2d) gaussian peaks fitting  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc two dimensional (2d) gaussian peaks fitting
    Two Dimensional (2d) Gaussian Peaks Fitting, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two dimensional (2d) gaussian peaks fitting/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two dimensional (2d) gaussian peaks fitting - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method
    Two Dimensional Gaussian Peak Fitting Method, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    codes with two-dimensional gaussian fitting algorithm  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc codes with two-dimensional gaussian fitting algorithm
    Codes With Two Dimensional Gaussian Fitting Algorithm, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/codes with two-dimensional gaussian fitting algorithm/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    codes with two-dimensional gaussian fitting algorithm - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    two-dimensional gaussian fit  (Koehler Instrument)
    90
    Koehler Instrument two-dimensional gaussian fit
    Two Dimensional Gaussian Fit, supplied by Koehler Instrument, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two-dimensional gaussian fit/product/Koehler Instrument
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two-dimensional gaussian fit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    two-dimensional gaussian fit  (GraphPad Software Inc)
    90
    GraphPad Software Inc two-dimensional gaussian fit
    Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a <t>Gaussian</t> function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).
    Two Dimensional Gaussian Fit, supplied by GraphPad Software Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two-dimensional gaussian fit/product/GraphPad Software Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two-dimensional gaussian fit - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    two-dimensional gaussian fitting script  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc two-dimensional gaussian fitting script
    Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a <t>Gaussian</t> function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).
    Two Dimensional Gaussian Fitting Script, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two-dimensional gaussian fitting script/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two-dimensional gaussian fitting script - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method coded in  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method coded in
    Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a <t>Gaussian</t> function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).
    Two Dimensional Gaussian Peak Fitting Method Coded In, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method coded in/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    two-dimensional gaussian peak-fitting method coded in - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    algorithm-driven two-dimensional gaussian fitting protocol  (MathWorks Inc)
    90
    MathWorks Inc algorithm-driven two-dimensional gaussian fitting protocol
    Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a <t>Gaussian</t> function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).
    Algorithm Driven Two Dimensional Gaussian Fitting Protocol, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/algorithm-driven two-dimensional gaussian fitting protocol/product/MathWorks Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    algorithm-driven two-dimensional gaussian fitting protocol - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a Gaussian function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).

    Journal: Journal of Neurophysiology

    Article Title: Visual responses in the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus at early stages of retinal degeneration in rd 1 PDE6β mice

    doi: 10.1152/jn.00231.2019

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Spatial receptive fields in the rd1 Opn1mwR dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) A and B: effective photon flux (mean ± SE) of the background and bar stimuli used for receptive field mapping in the Opn1mwR and rd1 Opn1mwR mice, respectively, with calculated Michaelson contrast (%, mean ± SE) for each photopigment. Note that rod contrast is not relevant for rd1 mice because these animals lack rods at the age of recording. C: heat map for representative single units from the dLGN of an Opn1mwR (top) and rd1 Opn1mwR (bottom) mouse showing change in firing rate (spikes/s; scale at right) in response to the appearance of vertical bars (250 ms starting at time 0; 13° width at 4.5° resolution) as a function of location on azimuth of bar center. D: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) as a function of bar position for the 2 units in C, fit with a Gaussian function. E: box-and-whisker plot showing that receptive field diameter (mean ± SE) for all light-responsive units was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (12.17 ± 0.5°; n = 38 units; green bar) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (9.96 ± 0.3°; n = 48 units; black bar; ***P = 0.0005, unpaired t test). Box shows interquartile range; line in box is the median; cross is the mean; and whiskers indicate minimum to maximum range. F: peak response amplitude (change in firing rate, mean ± SE) was significantly larger in Opn1mwR (10.1 ± 1.2 spikes/s) than in rd1 Opn1mwR mice (7.02 ± 0.8 spikes/s; *P = 0.03, unpaired t test). G: response latency (mean ± SE) was significantly increased in rd1 Opn1mwR (177.9 ± 5.4 ms) compared with Opn1mwR mice (112.3 ± 4.46 ms; ****P < 0.0001, unpaired t test).

    Article Snippet: The spatial receptive field size for single units meeting this criterion was estimated by fitting a two-dimensional Gaussian fit ( R 2 > 0.7) to the relationship between response amplitude and bar position in GraphPad Prism 7 (GraphPad Software).

    Techniques: Whisker Assay