Propagate unit_electrode_indices to SortingInterface
#1124
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks good.
What do you think about adding some kind of how-to explaining what to do if you have 2 probes and run kilosort like in #1112?
I think it could be an effective way to communicate to users about this new feature.
| @@ -312,9 +313,15 @@ def add_to_nwbfile( | |||
| units_name : str, default: 'units' | |||
| The name of the units table. If write_as=='units', then units_name must also be 'units'. | |||
| units_description : str, default: 'Autogenerated by neuroconv.' | |||
| unit_electrode_indices : list of lists of int, optional | |||
| A list of lists of integers indicating the indices of the electrodes that each unit is associated with. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This corresponds to the sparsity in spikeinterface right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, in practice they are. Although, conceptually sparsity is a constrained channel representation (so an electronic thing) whereas this is meant to map to the representation of physical electrodes.
Actually, if this is supposed to be used in |
Yeah, I will* be adding a tutorial there. |
h-mayorquin
deleted the
add_electrode_disambiguation_in_sorting_interfaces
branch
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1124 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.58% 90.67% +0.08%
==========================================
Files 128 129 +1
Lines 8011 8182 +171
==========================================
+ Hits 7257 7419 +162
- Misses 754 763 +9
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
This will allow the user to pass a mapping between units and the electrodes on the electrode table. Eventually I will use this to add a more robust solution like here:
#1112 (comment)