Excellent. Again, it makes perfect sense. Thank you very much.
On Jan 20, 3:01 pm, Trevor Lewis <t.le... from unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>> Why do people do it this way? Let me provide an example that I am
> most familiar with. Take the development of inhibitory synapses in
> the lateral superior olive: they start out predominantly comprised of
> GABA type A receptors and gradually glycine receptors are introduced
> so that there is a mixture of the two at the synapse and then
> eventually become predominantly comprised of glycine receptors. The
> IPSCs from GABAaRs is slow, while GlyRs are fast. In this case it is
> useful to have a weighted mean time constant to describe the
> exponential decay of the IPSCs over the different developmental
> stages - since at some stages there will be two exponential
> components, and other stages just one component. Thus, the change
> from the slow IPSCs to the fast IPSCs can be described with a single
> parameter and can be easily plotted against time. Of course, you
> wouldn't rely solely on this analysis to describe what is happening.
> Certainly, if you were wanting to compare the relative contributions
> of the fast and slow components then a more robust statistical
> comparison would be useful (like a 2-way ANOVA).
>> At 04:04 AM 20/01/2009, you wrote:
>> >Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:02:19 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Bill <connelly.b... from gmail.com>
> >Subject: [Neuroscience] Re: Decay constants. What does "weighted"
> > mean?
> >To: neur-... from net.bio.net> >Message-ID:
> > <9247173e-1e8a-42e5-b05e-cd8d89ccd... from r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> >Thanks Trevor, that explains it nicely (I geussed it was something
> >like that).
>> >Why do people do it in that way? Wouldn't it make more sense if you
> >were comparing an intervention to do a 2-way ANOVA with Intervention
> >vs Slow Decay Constant vs Fast Decay Constant?