Fixing FilterNet behavior for frame_rate != 1000.0 #375
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixing FilterNet's behavior when the frame_rate is not 1000 Hz.
Previously, firing rates were not normalized correctly and were proportional to the frame_rate. This behavior is now fixed. You can expect the same firing rate outcome with different frame_rate, up to the filter accuracy.
Note: The frequency of the filter's temporal kernel should define the frame_rate. For our LGN models, the peaks are as narrow as several milliseconds, so 1000 Hz frame rate is a reasonable default.
The corresponding tests were also fixed. The neurons with multiple receptive fields can come with firing rate offset for their transfer function. I think these won't work in the previous implementation (another reason that we were locked into 1000 Hz). Although this required updating the values in the unit test results, I think the new ones are correct.
Kael, I tend to leave verbose comments in the code to give some context. If you feel they are unnecessary, please feel free to delete them.