Abstract
(1) Analysis of the durations of open and shut intervals measured from single channels currents provides a means to investigate the mechanisms of channel gating. Durations of open and shut intervals are conveniently measured from single channel data by using a threshold level to indicate transitions between open and shut states. This paper presents a detailed characterization of sampling, binning, and noise errors associated with 50% threshold analysis, provides criteria to reduce these errors, methods to correct for them, and presents an efficient means of data handling for binning and plotting interval durations. (2) Measuring interval durations by sampling at a fixed rate introduces two types of errors, (a) the number of intervals of a given measured duration are increased (promoted) over that expected in the absence of sampling, producing a sampling promotion error, (b) sampling decreases the total fraction of true intervals that are detected, producing a sampling detection error. Sampling errors can be reduced to negligible levels if the actual or effective (after interpolation) sampling period is less than 10-20% of both the dead time and fastest time constant in the distribution of intervals. Dead time is given by the duration of a true interval that has a filtered amplitude equal to 50% of the true amplitude. (3) Methods are presented to correct for sampling promotion error during least squares and maximum likelihood fitting. Sampling detection error is more difficult to correct, but an empirical description of the sampling detection error can be used to calculate the effective fraction of detected events with sampling. (4) Noise in the single channel current record can produce two types of error. (a) If noise peaks in the absence of channel activity exceed the threshold for detection, then false channel events of brief duration are produced. Sufficient filtering will prevent this type of error. (b) Noise can also increase the total fraction of true intervals that are detected, producing a noise detection error. Increased filtering over that required to prevent false events is not necessarily the best method for reducing noise detection error, as increased filtering can prevent detection of the faster exponential components. (5) Noise detection error can be reduced in two ways: (a) an empirical description of the noise detection error can be used to calculate the effective fraction of detected events in the presence of noise. (b) The sampling period can be selected so that the sampling detection error cancels the noise detection error.
