Intergration between behavior GUI and "ephys functions"

[XX-Yin]

Some "ephys functions" have been (or will be) integrated into the behavior GUI, and this integration can be a two-edged sword. Below are potential strategies along with their pros and cons. Feel free to chime in with feedback, questions, or additional ideas!

---

Strategy 1: Remove All "Ephys Functions" from the Behavior GUI

Develop a standalone solution for ephys-related functionalities instead of integrating them into the behavior GUI.

Pros

• Reusable Across Tasks: Functions could be shared across different behavior tasks (e.g., VR foraging or future tasks) without having to rely on the behavior GUI.
• Less Burden: May alleviate the burden and complexity of maintaining these functions within the behavior GUI itself.

Cons

• Integration Overhead: Integration between ephys data and the behavior (e.g., metadata, NWB, data pipelines) must happen at some point. We may need to “break” or reorganize parts of the existing pipeline to accommodate a standalone approach.
• Long Development Timeline: Could take months to fully develop standalone functions that are compatible with the current pipeline.

---

Strategy 2: Integrate All "Ephys Functions" into the Behavior GUI

Include all "ephys functions" directly within the behavior GUI to maintain a unified environment.

Pros

• Unified Pipeline: We can access ephys data modalities in one place, preserving a direct link to the existing NWB packaging and pipeline.
• Compatibility: Follows the current structure, ensuring minimal disruption of the NWB packaging and pipeline.

Cons

• GUI Complexity: The behavior GUI becomes more complex, which may make it harder to maintain.
• Limited Reusability: It may be difficult to share the integrated ephys functions with other tasks (especially VR foraging or new tasks that do not use the behavior GUI).

---

Strategy 3: Hybrid Approach

Combine both methods: integrate certain "ephys functions" into the behavior GUI where it makes sense, while simultaneously developing separate, standalone solutions.

Pros

• Maintains a Unified Pipeline: Some "ephys functions" can still be accessible via the GUI without disrupting the existing NWB package and pipeline.
• Parallel Development: We can continue to develop standalone solutions (for broader reuse) without integrating everything in the GUI.
• Immediate Updates: Allows teams to update experiment code and pipelines more rapidly, instead of waiting months for a fully standalone solution to be ready.

Cons

• Duplicate Efforts: Maintaining both integrated and standalone solutions may lead to redundancies and extra development overhead.

---

Current GUI Functions Related to Ephys

• Metadata generation (related to ephys)
• Optical tagging functions (planned to merge into the behavior GUI; PR is here )
• (...other ongoing or planned ephys-related features...)

---

Discussion and Next Steps

1. Feedback: Which strategy do you prefer and why? Please comment with your thoughts on how to balance the immediate needs of the pipeline with longer-term maintainability.
2. Implementation Details:
3. Timeline: We need to assess development timelines for each route.

---

Feel free to leave comments, add reactions, or open a related PR if you have concrete suggestions for either approach. Your input is greatly appreciated!

[alexpiet]

I started a planning document thats more general than dynamic foraging and ephys here: https://alleninstitute-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/alex_piet_alleninstitute_org/EZlFo9Izjf1MloUrvgPsZxUBvZ5b7AZSc1-gFjM3CvPjRw?e=z90UMh

EDIT: (Wrong link)

[XX-Yin]

Looks great! We can also discuss this broader topic tomorrow.