Unsupervised neural spike sorting for high-density microelectrode arrays with convolutive independent component analysis
Journal of Neuroscience Methods, ISSN: 0165-0270, Vol: 271, Page: 1-13
2016
- 29Citations
- 99Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations29
- Citation Indexes29
- 29
- CrossRef26
- Captures99
- Readers99
- 99
Article Description
Unsupervised identification of action potentials in multi-channel extracellular recordings, in particular from high-density microelectrode arrays with thousands of sensors, is an unresolved problem. While independent component analysis (ICA) achieves rapid unsupervised sorting, it ignores the convolutive structure of extracellular data, thus limiting the unmixing to a subset of neurons. Here we present a spike sorting algorithm based on convolutive ICA (cICA) to retrieve a larger number of accurately sorted neurons than with instantaneous ICA while accounting for signal overlaps. Spike sorting was applied to datasets with varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNR: 3–12) and 27% spike overlaps, sampled at either 11.5 or 23 kHz on 4365 electrodes. We demonstrate how the instantaneity assumption in ICA-based algorithms has to be relaxed in order to improve the spike sorting performance for high-density microelectrode array recordings. Reformulating the convolutive mixture as an instantaneous mixture by modeling several delayed samples jointly is necessary to increase signal-to-noise ratio. Our results emphasize that different cICA algorithms are not equivalent. Spike sorting performance was assessed with ground-truth data generated from experimentally derived templates. The presented spike sorter was able to extract ≈90% of the true spike trains with an error rate below 2%. It was superior to two alternative (c)ICA methods (≈80% accurately sorted neurons) and comparable to a supervised sorting. Our new algorithm represents a fast solution to overcome the current bottleneck in spike sorting of large datasets generated by simultaneous recording with thousands of electrodes.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165027016301273; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.06.006; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84977261869&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27317497; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165027016301273; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.06.006
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know