4.8 Article

A multistage mathematical approach to automated clustering of high-dimensional noisy data

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1503940112

关键词

spike sorting; dimensional evaluation; dimensional selection; curse of dimensionality; dimension reduction

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 MH060379]
  2. Defense Advanced Research Project Agency [W911NF-10-1-0059]
  3. CHDI Foundation [A-5552]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A critical problem faced in many scientific fields is the adequate separation of data derived from individual sources. Often, such datasets require analysis of multiple features in a highly multidimensional space, with overlap of features and sources. The datasets generated by simultaneous recording from hundreds of neurons emitting phasic action potentials have produced the challenge of separating the recorded signals into independent data subsets (clusters) corresponding to individual signal-generating neurons. Mathematical methods have been developed over the past three decades to achieve such spike clustering, but a complete solution with fully automated cluster identification has not been achieved. We propose here a fully automated mathematical approach that identifies clusters in multidimensional space through recursion, which combats the multidimensionality of the data. Recursion is paired with an approach to dimensional evaluation, in which each dimension of a dataset is examined for its informational importance for clustering. The dimensions offering greater informational importance are given added weight during recursive clustering. To combat strong background activity, our algorithm takes an iterative approach of data filtering according to a signal-to-noise ratio metric. The algorithm finds cluster cores, which are thereafter expanded to include complete clusters. This mathematical approach can be extended from its prototype context of spike sorting to other datasets that suffer from high dimensionality and background activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据