-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 188
Add 1PE to complement 2PE (microscopy) #2173
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
https://blog.biodock.ai/one-vs-two-photon-microscopy/ seems to provide a nice comparison between one- and two-photon microscopy. Also https://www.gophotonics.com/community/what-are-single-photon-and-two-photon-excitation provides another comparison and uses "excitation" consistently between them. Note that there is also already "FLUO" suffix for "Fluorescence microscopy" in general, of which both 1PE and 2PE and likely MPE (multi-photon) mechanisms are, so unclear when FLUO to be used, but I guess 2PE, MPE and now 1PE should be RECOMMENDED to be used in favor of FLUO as more specific
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #2173 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 82.71% 82.71%
=======================================
Files 20 20
Lines 1608 1608
=======================================
Hits 1330 1330
Misses 278 278 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
cc @bids-standard/bep031 |
pinging wider @bids-standard/maintainers for blessing on this |
@jcohenadad would you be willing to weigh in on this? |
I don't have enough expertise in microscopy, sorry |
Okay, failing that, @yarikoptic I think it would be good to seek out some kind of consensus and not a bunch of non-practitioners who have commit privileges. IDK if posting to the bids-discussion list makes sense? Or perhaps OME lists? |
@CodyCBakerPhD @bendichter , may be you could assist
|
@yarikoptic BIDS microscopy only applies to static images to my understanding. We may have a certain number of those scattered throughout (namely for anatomical markers) but the majority is time-dependent (videos) There is a fair amount of metadata missing overall in BIDS to 'pull out' from NWB (field of view, coordinate systems, grid spacing, depths, optical channels) From what I see the minimal amount to distinguish from 2P would be the excitation wavelengths (scalar per optic channel; technically the 'peak' of the excitation waveform). Some people even think the full waveform matters but can also usually be pulled from external sources if you specify the indicator |
as I have mentioned in there is nothing in BIDS microscopy restricting to anatomical, although indeed lacking desired temporal data formalized. But overall questions mostly relevant to this particular PR:
|
https://blog.biodock.ai/one-vs-two-photon-microscopy/ seems to provide a nice comparison between one- and two-photon microscopy. Also
https://www.gophotonics.com/community/what-are-single-photon-and-two-photon-excitation provides another comparison and uses "excitation" consistently between them.
Note that there is also already "FLUO" suffix for "Fluorescence microscopy" in general, of which both 1PE and 2PE and likely MPE (multi-photon) mechanisms are, so unclear when FLUO to be used, but I guess 2PE, MPE and now 1PE should be RECOMMENDED to be used in favor of FLUO as more specific
Some related references:
ping @bids-standard/bep031 @bendichter