-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Localization difference between BioCam and RecordingExtractor objects #61
Comments
Indeed, the parameters set in the probe differ. It's been the plan for some time to only use SpikeImterface objects, but progress has been a bit slow to implement this. Do you think you can adjust the parameters to get the same behaviour? I'll take a closer look asap! |
I have already tried passing the arguments with |
I compared results from the same file, using the same parameters, with the only difference being that one is loaded through Sorting and clustering are then performed with the exact same parameters. The first obvious difference is when using Then, with The main difference is that it's rotated and mirrored, but there's also slightly fewer spikes detected : 59742 spikes through HS and 60990 spikes through SI. Again, all of the detection parameters are exactly the same, the only difference is the This is also the case after clustering, with The axis labels are also incorrect when going through SI's reader. From what I can tell, it seems to stem from @mhhennig Is there a reason why those objects need to use different coordinate files ? |
See #70 |
Hi,
I'm trying to run Herding Spikes on an object that is then compatible with SpikeInterface and/or Neo objects.
Ideally, I would be able to have the flexibility of using standalone Herding Spikes while still being able to interact with a SpikeInterface pipeline.
My issue was intially detailed here.
Essentially, running
HSDetection
on the same file with the same parameters results in different outputs depending on wether I use HS2'sBioCam
object or SI'sread_biocam
then feed it throughhs.probe.RecordingExtractor
, as illustrated here.It seems to boil down to
BioCam
andRecordingExtractor
having different default parameters forinner_radius
,neighbor_radius
andmasked_channels
, and using different files for position and neighbor coordinates.As detailed here, the
neighbormatrix_spikeextractor
generated when usingRecordingExtractor
is very different from the defaultneighbormatrix_biocam
used withBioCam
, and as a result themax_neighbors
property is different.From what I've been able to understand, it might be caused by how channel positions are obtained here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: