Acute electrophysiology recordings procedure

[vncntprvst]

Data acquisitions require a related subject procedures.

For acute electrophysiology recordings (e.g., with silicon / Neuropixels probes), where a probe is inserted with a micromanipulator, then retracted, the closest related procedure is "Silicon probe implant". But of course the probe is not implanted.
A similar issue happens for slice ephys recordings: the pipette is lowered in the tissue, then removed.

I'm sure you thought about it, just wanted to get your view on this point. I would prefer, if possible, to have a dedicated category for acute recordings, separate from Implants.
What do you think?

[petersenpeter]

Hi Vincent

The Silicon probe implant is meant to cover acute recordings as well, but I can see how the name is misleading. If we introduced a new procedure to cover (Acute) Silicon probe insertion, besides the name confusion, what are you missing in terms of describing the acute aspect?

/ Peter

[vncntprvst]

Hi Peter,
There are two related aspects to this question: convenience, and conceptual.
Since acute recordings are procedures that are repeated many times for the same animal, sometimes multiple times in the same session (at different coordinates), or with multiples probes, it's not very convenient to create a different procedure for each of these acute recordings. You end up with many nearly identical procedures for every subject.
Instead, if the procedure was used to describe a typical insertion with a given probe (or probes), maybe within a given setup, that would make documenting the experiment less cumbersome, more compact, and easier to read.
So, in a way, I would want less features in the Procedure itself, not more.
The coordinates, brain region, subject id should go to the Session. There, it we could more flexibly document recording at different depths / coordinates / with multiple probes.
Within a Session, those information could be entered in the Data acquisition tab, for simplicity (or in a separate tab).

[vncntprvst]

Another downside of listing every acute probe insertion (or lowering at a different depth) as a separate procedure is that it is not clear which one to select in the Session > Data acquisition > Subject procedures:

They all look the same.

[petersenpeter]

Hi Vincent

I appreciate the honest input.

I am working on making this more transparent and user-friendly. We are designing a system to handle slices/specimens to complement whole animal recordings and procedures, and perhaps acute recordings share more features with this type of setup than chronic implants.

On a nearer timescale, I can make the dropdown labels more complete and introduce a name field for each procedure to make them easier to distinguish. This would show the coordinates, a name, and other potential details in the dropdown fields. Would that be a better solution?

[vncntprvst]

Hi Peter,
dropdown labels with distinguishing features would definitely help!
I agree, slice recordings are similar in that way. I don't know if it's feasible, but having the option to create / edit / reuse procedures, based on a template, within the Data acquisition tab would be convenient. For example, if I'm doing recordings at different depths, within the same probe insertion, all the parameters except depth will stay the same. To be able to quickly re-use and edit the previous acquisition / procedure, without having to navigate to a different part of the interface and enter the same information again, would simplify usage.
Thanks for working on this!