You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
At the moment, within a single file, the widget merges together the repetitions of different cells, apparently in the following order: [rep1 cell1], [rep1, cell2], [rep2, cell1], [rep2, cell2] etc
Plots from different cells should somehow be displayed separately.
How do you suggest we fix this? We could have multiple rows, one for each cell. Then the columns would be reps and the rows would be cells.
Although this is perhaps the simplest view, I think this is not how experimenters see their data, because cells are not always directly comparable.
Can we assume the stimuli are the same for each cell for a given sweep?
If I understand the question correctly: no, you can't assume this. For example, the starting amperage of a stimulus will change depending on the electrical properties of a specific cell: so you can't skip plotting the stimuli, if this is why you were asking. During analysis, typically some normalization occurs.
Phrased another way, what is the most natural way of exploring this data? The way I described would be session -> stimulus_type -> cell & rep -> stimulus & response
but another way could be session -> cell -> stimulus_type -> rep -> stimulus & response
Because of the previous answer, I would go with the second, with the possibility to preserve the user choice of stimulus_type and rep between switches between cells.
So cell x buttons/tabs should be at the very top, outside of the stimulus_type - repetition accordion.
and then for the runs table, we were thinking rep -> stimulus_type -> stimulus & response
I can put these in basically any hierarchical order. Maybe I should make that flexible? Would that be too much?
Sounds good this way. I would keep it simple until further user requests. Of course, cells should appear the way it appears for the repetitions (described above).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At the moment, within a single file, the widget merges together the repetitions of different cells, apparently in the following order:
[rep1 cell1], [rep1, cell2], [rep2, cell1], [rep2, cell2]
etcPlots from different cells should somehow be displayed separately.
Answering to @bendichter:
Although this is perhaps the simplest view, I think this is not how experimenters see their data, because cells are not always directly comparable.
If I understand the question correctly: no, you can't assume this. For example, the starting amperage of a stimulus will change depending on the electrical properties of a specific cell: so you can't skip plotting the stimuli, if this is why you were asking. During analysis, typically some normalization occurs.
Because of the previous answer, I would go with the second, with the possibility to preserve the user choice of
stimulus_type
andrep
between switches between cells.So
cell x
buttons/tabs should be at the very top, outside of the stimulus_type - repetition accordion.Sounds good this way. I would keep it simple until further user requests. Of course, cells should appear the way it appears for the repetitions (described above).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: