3). We then selected the 22 coefficients with the largest values of F2 − F1. Note that knowing the explicit number of peaks is not necessary for the purpose discussed www.selleckchem.com/products/GDC-0980-RG7422.html here, even if the distribution is better modeled with more than two peaks. To remove the redundancy of the extracted features, we further reduced the number of the coefficients by using PCA. Our analysis of simultaneous

extracellular/intracellular recording data suggested that the present spike clustering is most accurate in the feature dimension of about 8–20 (data not shown). In this study, the dimension was fixed at 12. On the electrophysiological datasets that we analyzed, these coefficients accounted for 98% of the variance of the selected wavelet coefficients. The above reduction was crucial

for suppressing the computational load and the error rate in spike clustering. Thus, spikes of the individual neurons were represented in the 12-dimensional feature space spanned by these coefficients. The mixture of factor analyzer is known to be a powerful method of solving the curse learn more of dimensionality. This method enables feature extraction and clustering in the original data dimension (Görür et al., 2004). In our preliminary studies, however, solving the mixture of factor analyzer was time consuming and required accurate estimation of many parameters, which often deteriorated reliable convergence to a reasonably good solution. Therefore, we do not consider the mixture of factor analyzer in the present study. Our open software ‘EToS’, however, provides the mixture of factor analyzer as an option so that users can test it with their data. Let p(xn, zn =  k|θ, m) be the conditional mafosfamide probability that the n-th data takes a value xn and belongs to the k-th cluster with probability αk, where θ = α1,…, αm, β1,… βm represents the set of parameters characterizing the clusters and m is the number of clusters. In this study, we fit the clusters with a normal mixture model p(xn, zn = k|θ,m) = αkN(x|βk) and Student’s t mixture model p(xn, zn = k|θ, m) = αkT(x | βk), where N(x|βk)

and T(x|βk) represent normal and Student’s t-distributions, respectively, and the normalized cluster size αk should satisfy . For the normal distribution, , where vk and μk are the mean and variance of the distribution to fit cluster k, respectively. For the Student’s t-distribution, βk = vk, μk, ∑k, where vk is the number of degrees of freedom of the distribution. EM and VB methods were tested in parameter estimation. Thus, we compared the performance of the following four combined algorithms: normal EM (NEM), Student’s t EM [robust EM (REM)], normal VB (NVB) and Student’s t VB (RVB). Basic algorithms of NEM, REM, NVB and RVB were described in Dempster et al. (1977), Peel & McLachlan (2000), Attias (1999) and Archambeau & Verleysen (2007), respectively. The correct number of clusters is usually unknown.