↓ Skip to main content

Spike sorting for polytrodes: a divide and conquer approach

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Spike sorting for polytrodes: a divide and conquer approach
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas V. Swindale, Martin A. Spacek

Abstract

In order to determine patterns of neural activity, spike signals recorded by extracellular electrodes have to be clustered (sorted) with the aim of ensuring that each cluster represents all the spikes generated by an individual neuron. Many methods for spike sorting have been proposed but few are easily applicable to recordings from polytrodes which may have 16 or more recording sites. As with tetrodes, these are spaced sufficiently closely that signals from single neurons will usually be recorded on several adjacent sites. Although this offers a better chance of distinguishing neurons with similarly shaped spikes, sorting is difficult in such cases because of the high dimensionality of the space in which the signals must be classified. This report details a method for spike sorting based on a divide and conquer approach. Clusters are initially formed by assigning each event to the channel on which it is largest. Each channel-based cluster is then sub-divided into as many distinct clusters as possible. These are then recombined on the basis of pairwise tests into a final set of clusters. Pairwise tests are also performed to establish how distinct each cluster is from the others. A modified gradient ascent clustering (GAC) algorithm is used to do the clustering. The method can sort spikes with minimal user input in times comparable to real time for recordings lasting up to 45 min. Our results illustrate some of the difficulties inherent in spike sorting, including changes in spike shape over time. We show that some physiologically distinct units may have very similar spike shapes. We show that RMS measures of spike shape similarity are not sensitive enough to discriminate clusters that can otherwise be separated by principal components analysis (PCA). Hence spike sorting based on least-squares matching to templates may be unreliable. Our methods should be applicable to tetrodes and scalable to larger multi-electrode arrays (MEAs).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Japan 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 100 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 33%
Researcher 27 25%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 24 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 19%
Neuroscience 14 13%
Computer Science 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 19 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 February 2014.
All research outputs
#15,293,290
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#959
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,979
of 305,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 305,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.