Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33566859›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Efficient neural spike sorting using data subdivision and unification.

Masood Ul Hassan, Rakesh Veerabhadrappa, Asim Bhatti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Masood Ul HassanSchool of Engineering (Electrical and Renewable Energy), Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0414-1372
Rakesh VeerabhadrappaInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia.
Asim BhattiInstitute for Intelligent Systems Research and Innovation, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6876-1437

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural spike sorting is prerequisite to deciphering useful information from electrophysiological data recorded from the brain, in vitro and/or in vivo. Significant advancements in nanotechnology and nanofabrication has enabled neuroscientists and engineers to capture the electrophysiological activities of the brain at very high resolution, data rate and fidelity. However, the evolution in spike sorting algorithms to deal with the aforementioned technological advancement and capability to quantify higher density data sets is somewhat limited. Both supervised and unsupervised clustering algorithms do perform well when the data to quantify is small, however, their efficiency degrades with the increase in the data size in terms of processing time and quality of spike clusters being formed. This makes neural spike sorting an inefficient process to deal with large and dense electrophysiological data recorded from brain. The presented work aims to address this challenge by providing a novel data pre-processing framework, which can enhance the efficiency of the conventional spike sorting algorithms significantly. The proposed framework is validated by applying on ten widely used algorithms and six large feature sets. Feature sets are calculated by employing PCA and Haar wavelet features on three widely adopted large electrophysiological datasets for consistency during the clustering process. A MATLAB software of the proposed mechanism is also developed and provided to assist the researchers, active in this domain.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAlgorithmsModels, NeurologicalSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedSoftwareAnimalsBrainCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyHumansNeuronsRats

Identifiers

PMID33566859
PMCPMC7875432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.