 1. For control and the three stimuli, find the number of correlated ROIs
> over the first k% of frames following the stimulus onset, the
> next k% etc. I'm thinking that k% should be roughly 10%. Please tell me
> your views. We could also try various values
> and choose histograms.
>
>
> *Based on the kinetics of the calcium indicator the fastest event takes
> upto 75 ms to decay (3 frames). Multi spike events may last longer going
> upto 0.5 s. So that should be the time after stimulus for event detection *

> 2. We will compare this number with the number of correlated ROIs for the
> control and use a p-value analysis to find significance.
>
> *Agreed*
>
> 3. We will do the above for synchronous correlation, but we are thinking
> that offsets (i.e. lagged correlations) might be interesting
> too. If you agree, are there lags that you think would be particularly
> interesting? We could try to discover good lags as well.
>
>
> *20 ms ; 70 ms; 125 ms are behaviorally relevant lags that could be
> interesting. The onset of the calcium signal can be within the 5-10 ms
> range so we could detect the 20 ms lag possibly *
>
> 4. The above analysis addresses the question "Does the stimulus cause
> unusually a lot of correlated reaction among a lot of ROIs and when
> following the stimulus?" Equally interesting would be to identify which
> ROIs are correlated and whether there is
> a spatial component. Do you have spatial information? If so, we could also
> look at the level of correlation as a function of distance.
>
>
> *We are interested in spatio-temporal patterns of activity . So yes a
> correlation by distance or making a tonotopic map may be interesting. In
> terms of behavior yes there may be certain neurons that respond to certain
> locations (of the animal) in space - mouse is running on a treadmill and we
> could provide the locomotive org signal to you that we have aquifer through
> a rotary encoder on the wheel and RFID tag for track position.*
> 5. Please let us know if you think we're missing something major.
>
> *I think you've touched on most of the major analysis*
