Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38589517›Full record

ArticleNature methods2024

Spike sorting with Kilosort4.

Marius Pachitariu, Shashwat Sridhar, Jacob Pennington, Carsen Stringer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 251 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
251citing 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

251 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Detection and Removal of Hyper-synchronous Artifacts in Massively Parallel Spike Recordings.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

191 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Marius PachitariuHHMI, Ashburn, VA, USA. pachitarium@hhmi.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7106-814X
Shashwat SridharHHMI, Ashburn, VA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8837-8555
Jacob PenningtonHHMI, Ashburn, VA, USA.
Carsen StringerHHMI, Ashburn, VA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9229-4100

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spike sorting is the computational process of extracting the firing times of single neurons from recordings of local electrical fields. This is an important but hard problem in neuroscience, made complicated by the nonstationarity of the recordings and the dense overlap in electrical fields between nearby neurons. To address the spike-sorting problem, we have been openly developing the Kilosort framework. Here we describe the various algorithmic steps introduced in different versions of Kilosort. We also report the development of Kilosort4, a version with substantially improved performance due to clustering algorithms inspired by graph-based approaches. To test the performance of Kilosort, we developed a realistic simulation framework that uses densely sampled electrical fields from real experiments to generate nonstationary spike waveforms and realistic noise. We found that nearly all versions of Kilosort outperformed other algorithms on a variety of simulated conditions and that Kilosort4 performed best in all cases, correctly identifying even neurons with low amplitudes and small spatial extents in high drift conditions.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAlgorithmsComputer SimulationModels, NeurologicalNeuronsAnimalsHumansSignal Processing, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID38589517
PMCPMC11093732

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.