Review




Structured Review

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars

Images



Similar Products

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

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, 2026-04
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

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, 2026-04
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