Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38187738›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Assessing cross-contamination in spike-sorted electrophysiology data.

Jack P Vincent, Michael N Economo

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jack P VincentDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-9066-2494
Michael N EconomoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA.ORCID 0000-0001-9893-1505

Funding

Linking Motor Cortex Activity and Movement in the Mouse Orofacial SystemR01NS121409 · NINDS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI Michael Nicholas Economo · 2022 to 2026
$2.1M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS121409
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in extracellular electrophysiology now facilitate the recording of spikes from hundreds or thousands of neurons simultaneously. This has necessitated both the development of new computational methods for spike sorting and better methods to determine spike sorting accuracy. One longstanding method of assessing the false discovery rate (FDR) of spike sorting - the rate at which spikes are misassigned to the wrong cluster - has been the rate of inter-spike-interval (ISI) violations. Despite their near ubiquitous usage in spike sorting, our understanding of how exactly ISI violations relate to FDR, as well as best practices for using ISI violations as a quality metric, remain limited. Here, we describe an analytical solution that can be used to predict FDR from ISI violation rate. We test this model in silico through Monte Carlo simulation, and apply it to publicly available spike-sorted electrophysiology datasets. We find that the relationship between ISI violation rate and FDR is highly nonlinear, with additional dependencies on firing rate, the correlation in activity between neurons, and contaminant neuron count. Predicted median FDRs in public datasets were found to range from 3.1% to 50.0%. We find that stochasticity in the occurrence of ISI violations as well as uncertainty in cluster-specific parameters make it difficult to predict FDR for single clusters with high confidence, but that FDR can be estimated accurately across a population of clusters. Our findings will help the growing community of researchers using extracellular electrophysiology assess spike sorting accuracy in a principled manner.

Identifiers

PMID38187738
PMCPMC10769346

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.