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

BuG: Re: spike holes #598

Closed
WeissShahaf opened this issue Mar 1, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

BuG: Re: spike holes #598

WeissShahaf opened this issue Mar 1, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@WeissShahaf
Copy link

Describe the issue:

Just making sure the issue isn't lost in kilosort4.
Issue #594 raised a serious concern regarding the data loading.
Can you confirm if this issue is present in KS4 or being investigated?

Thanks,
Shahaf

Reproduce the bug:

No response

Error message:

No response

Version information:

Linux win 10

Context for the issue:

Possible bug carried over from past versions of kilosort

Experiment information:

No response

@marius10p
Copy link
Contributor

I have replied in #594. The issue does not seem to be present in Kilosort4 probably because the new binary file functions work very differently, but if anyone finds it, feel free to reopen that issue.

It also appears to affect different versions differently, i.e. it seems very strong in pykilosort, but less so in the Matlab versions. I could replicate it in the Matlab versions of KS 2.5 and 3, but not in 1 and 2.

@runbogao
Copy link

runbogao commented Mar 4, 2024

Hi Marius, thanks for testing the issue for all the version of KS. We are using a pipeline (https://github.com/jenniferColonell/ecephys_spike_sorting)) based on KS2.5 to do spike sorting, and all pipeline for downstream analysis are based on that. We would like to stick to KS2.5 for now. Do you have any suggestions to work around the bug (e.g. splitting batches with a small overlap)? Thank you in advance!

@jacobpennington
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing this one, it looks like #594 is the right place to continue this discussion.

@marius10p
Copy link
Contributor

@runbogao The latest release version 2.5.2 should fix this issue. Would be great if you could test it and give me some feedback.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants