The contrast, σ, was σ=W/Mσ=W/M. The probability, p(ν|s)p(ν|s), of an input, ν  , given a signal, s  , was taken from a Gaussian fit from the distribution of bipolar cell membrane potentials at 5% contrast. The probability of an input, ν  , given that no signal was present, p(ν|η)p(ν|η), was estimated as a Gaussian distribution from repeated presentation of the same 5% contrast stimuli. For the model, the average ratio of the SD of a Gaussian fit to p(ν|η)p(ν|η) and p(ν|s)p(ν|s) was the only parameter taken from the data. For the recursive spatiotemporal inference model at each time point,

the posterior probability, PLX-4720 concentration p(sx,t|νx,t)p(sx,t|νx,t) was computed from Bayes’ rule as equation(1) p(sx,t|νx,t)=p(νx,t|sx,t)p(sx,t)p(νx,t|sx,t)p(sx,t)+p(νx,t|η)(1−p(sx,t)). The denominator, p  (ν  ), reflected the fact that p(s)+p(η)=1p(s)+p(η)=1 (either a signal is present or it is not). The prior probability, p(sx,t)p(sx,t), was updated from the previous posterior probability at each time point by convolving a Gaussian this website smoothing filter, h  (k  ), with p(sx−k,t−1|νx−k,t−1)p(sx−k,t−1|νx−k,t−1) according to equation(2) p(sx,t)=∫h(k)p(sx−k,t−1|νx−k,t−1)dk.p(sx,t)=∫h(k)p(sx−k,t−1|νx−k,t−1)dk. The average posterior, 〈p(s|ν)〉〈p(s|ν)〉, during Learly and Llate was computed. Further details are given in the Supplemental Experimental Procedures.

We thank D. Baylor, R.W. Tsien, B. Wandell, A.L. Fairhall, and P. Jadzinsky for helpful discussions. This work was supported by grants from the National Eye Institute, Pew Charitable Trusts, of the McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the E. Matilda Ziegler Foundation (S.A.B.); by the Stanford Medical Scientist Training Program, and a National Science Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship graduate fellowship (D.B.K.). D.B.K. and S.A.B. designed the study, D.B.K.

performed the experiments and analysis, and D.B.K. and S.A.B. wrote the manuscript. “
“Memory formation is a fundamental process needed for adaptive behavior. A growing body of evidence suggests that learning and memory processes involve the modification of ongoing spontaneous activity in an experience-dependent fashion (Wilson and McNaughton, 1994). As an animal’s exposure to an environment increases, the similarity between spontaneous activity and activity evoked by natural stimuli also increases (Berkes et al., 2011). This suggests that, during learning, spontaneous activity progressively adapts to the statistics of encountered stimuli (Fiser et al., 2010). In support of this idea, an imaging study of visual cortex in rats using voltage-sensitive dyes revealed that repetitive presentation of a visual stimulus modified global patterns of subsequent spontaneous activity such that these patterns more closely resembled the evoked responses (Han et al., 2008).