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

Resolve ephys pipeline output differences between nwb1 and nwb2 #321

Closed
5 tasks done
sgratiy opened this issue Feb 5, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #382
Closed
5 tasks done

Resolve ephys pipeline output differences between nwb1 and nwb2 #321

sgratiy opened this issue Feb 5, 2020 · 0 comments · Fixed by #382

Comments

@sgratiy
Copy link
Contributor

sgratiy commented Feb 5, 2020

When running pipeline for the same experiment saved in nwb1 vs nwb2 there are some differenced in the metadata produced by the pipeline:
e.g.: nwb2 vs nwb1
"stimulus_code_ext": "X6SP_Rheo_DA_0" vs stimulus_code_ext": "X6SP_Rheo[9]
"bridge_balance_mohm": [ 12.942612648010254 ] vs "bridge_balance_mohm": 12.942613,
same for leak_pa
stimulus_scale_factor value is different between the two:

  • use get_scalar_value function when reading data from nwb2
  • read stimulus_scale_factor from the labnotebook for the MIES nwb2
  • resolve value difference in stimulus_scale factor
  • Review/revise and possibly redesign the nwb reading classes. Related to the issue Refactor nwb_reader #286
  • Add test to compare pipeline outputs for nwb2 and nwb1
@wbwakeman wbwakeman added this to the Marmot 2020-02-25 milestone Feb 12, 2020
NileGraddis added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 17, 2020
sgratiy pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2020
sgratiy pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 19, 2020
sgratiy pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2020
sgratiy pushed a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2020
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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants