» Articles » PMID: 39095090

Assessing Cross-Contamination in Spike-Sorted Electrophysiology Data

Overview
Journal eNeuro
Specialty Neurology
Date 2024 Aug 2
PMID 39095090
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Recent advances in extracellular electrophysiology now facilitate the recording of spikes from hundreds or thousands of neurons simultaneously. This has necessitated both the development of new computational methods for spike sorting and better methods to determine spike-sorting accuracy. One long-standing method of assessing the false discovery rate (FDR) of spike sorting-the rate at which spikes are assigned to the wrong cluster-has been the rate of interspike interval (ISI) violations. Despite their near ubiquitous usage in spike sorting, our understanding of how exactly ISI violations relate to FDR, as well as best practices for using ISI violations as a quality metric, remains limited. Here, we describe an analytical solution that can be used to predict FDR from the ISI violation rate (ISI). We test this model in silico through Monte Carlo simulation and apply it to publicly available spike-sorted electrophysiology datasets. We find that the relationship between ISI and FDR is highly nonlinear, with additional dependencies on firing frequency, the correlation in activity between neurons, and contaminant neuron count. Predicted median FDRs in public datasets recorded in mice were found to range from 3.1 to 50.0%. We found that stochasticity in the occurrence of ISI violations as well as uncertainty in cluster-specific parameters make it difficult to predict FDR for single clusters with high confidence but that FDR can be estimated accurately across a population of clusters. Our findings will help the growing community of researchers using extracellular electrophysiology assess spike-sorting accuracy in a principled manner.

Citing Articles

Comparative analysis of spike-sorters in large-scale brainstem recordings.

De Preter C, Leimer E, Sonneborn A, Heinricher M bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39605601 PMC: 11601346. DOI: 10.1101/2024.11.11.623089.


Separating cognitive and motor processes in the behaving mouse.

Hasnain M, Birnbaum J, Ugarte Nunez J, Hartman E, Chandrasekaran C, Economo M bioRxiv. 2023; .

PMID: 37662199 PMC: 10473744. DOI: 10.1101/2023.08.23.554474.

References
1.
Magland J, Jun J, Lovero E, Morley A, Hurwitz C, Buccino A . SpikeForest, reproducible web-facing ground-truth validation of automated neural spike sorters. Elife. 2020; 9. PMC: 7237210. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.55167. View

2.
Shinomoto S, Tsubo Y . Modeling spiking behavior of neurons with time-dependent Poisson processes. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2001; 64(4 Pt 1):041910. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.041910. View

3.
Roy S, Wang X . Wireless multi-channel single unit recording in freely moving and vocalizing primates. J Neurosci Methods. 2011; 203(1):28-40. PMC: 3848526. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.09.004. View

4.
Harris K, Hirase H, Leinekugel X, Henze D, Buzsaki G . Temporal interaction between single spikes and complex spike bursts in hippocampal pyramidal cells. Neuron. 2001; 32(1):141-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00447-0. View

5.
Neymotin S, Lytton W, Olypher A, Fenton A . Measuring the quality of neuronal identification in ensemble recordings. J Neurosci. 2011; 31(45):16398-409. PMC: 3247202. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4053-11.2011. View