Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Discussion] Should NIDQ channels be treated like ElectricalSeries? #994

Open
h-mayorquin opened this issue Aug 8, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Comments

@h-mayorquin
Copy link
Collaborator

From a discussion with @bendichter about examples where we want to extend a column in the electrodes table.

While working on #985 I realize the that we are writing the nidq as an ElectricalSeries:

from neuroconv.converters import SpikeGLXConverterPipe

converter = SpikeGLXConverterPipe(folder_path=SPIKEGLX_PATH / "Noise4Sam_g0")
nwbfile = converter.create_nwbfile()


electrodes_df = nwbfile.electrodes.to_dataframe()
electrodes_df[electrodes_df["channel_name"].str[0] == "X"]

image

Reading the docs in the schema it seems that NIDQ does not really fit there:

https://github.com/NeurodataWithoutBorders/nwb-schema/blob/63ac845b2e1afdf6fc79466c1feafdd34538bb10/core/nwb.ecephys.yaml#L1-L7

Quoting:

A time series of acquired voltage data from extracellular recordings ....

(bold mine)

Maybe it is OK to write NIDQ as ElectricalSeries because the units are volts but what seems odd to me is that we are also writing the channels in the electrodes table.

I feel this should not be the case?
Thoughts?

@h-mayorquin h-mayorquin changed the title [Discussion] Should NIDQ channels be treated like ElectricalSeries [Discussion] Should NIDQ channels be treated like ElectricalSeries? Aug 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant