↓ Skip to main content

Handling Metadata in a Neurophysiology Laboratory

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Handling Metadata in a Neurophysiology Laboratory
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2016.00026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lyuba Zehl, Florent Jaillet, Adrian Stoewer, Jan Grewe, Andrey Sobolev, Thomas Wachtler, Thomas G. Brochier, Alexa Riehle, Michael Denker, Sonja Grün

Abstract

To date, non-reproducibility of neurophysiological research is a matter of intense discussion in the scientific community. A crucial component to enhance reproducibility is to comprehensively collect and store metadata, that is, all information about the experiment, the data, and the applied preprocessing steps on the data, such that they can be accessed and shared in a consistent and simple manner. However, the complexity of experiments, the highly specialized analysis workflows and a lack of knowledge on how to make use of supporting software tools often overburden researchers to perform such a detailed documentation. For this reason, the collected metadata are often incomplete, incomprehensible for outsiders or ambiguous. Based on our research experience in dealing with diverse datasets, we here provide conceptual and technical guidance to overcome the challenges associated with the collection, organization, and storage of metadata in a neurophysiology laboratory. Through the concrete example of managing the metadata of a complex experiment that yields multi-channel recordings from monkeys performing a behavioral motor task, we practically demonstrate the implementation of these approaches and solutions with the intention that they may be generalized to other projects. Moreover, we detail five use cases that demonstrate the resulting benefits of constructing a well-organized metadata collection when processing or analyzing the recorded data, in particular when these are shared between laboratories in a modern scientific collaboration. Finally, we suggest an adaptable workflow to accumulate, structure and store metadata from different sources using, by way of example, the odML metadata framework.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 80 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Master 6 7%
Other 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 23 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 14%
Engineering 6 7%
Computer Science 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,668,270
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#381
of 751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,026
of 363,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#12
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 363,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.