{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/losonczylab/sima/issues/188","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/losonczylab/sima/issues/188/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/losonczylab/sima/issues/188/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/losonczylab/sima/issues/188/events","html_url":"https://github.com/losonczylab/sima/pull/188","id":94317196,"number":188,"title":"Adding support for a more robust std estimation for spike inferrence","user":{"login":"ranr01","id":10533928,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/10533928?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01","html_url":"https://github.com/ranr01","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/ranr01/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":5,"created_at":"2015-07-10T14:26:06Z","updated_at":"2015-07-11T15:55:17Z","closed_at":null,"pull_request":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/losonczylab/sima/pulls/188","html_url":"https://github.com/losonczylab/sima/pull/188","diff_url":"https://github.com/losonczylab/sima/pull/188.diff","patch_url":"https://github.com/losonczylab/sima/pull/188.patch"},"body":"Also a simpler implementation of next2pow.\r\nSee detailed docs in file."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/losonczylab/sima/issues/comments/120635588","html_url":"https://github.com/losonczylab/sima/pull/188#issuecomment-120635588","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/losonczylab/sima/issues/188","id":120635588,"user":{"login":"pkaifosh","id":1556515,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1556515?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh","html_url":"https://github.com/pkaifosh","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/pkaifosh/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-07-11T15:55:17Z","updated_at":"2015-07-11T15:55:17Z","body":"@ranr01 I think both methods for estimating ```sigma``` are similar in that they use data from pairs of adjacent points. The currently implemented method (at least in the \"robust\" case), doesn't really need a Poisson assumption. In fact, it works so long as the noise is white, and the true underlying signals has approximately equal autocovariance at lags of 0 and 1. This is essentially the same assumption as that which you use, i.e. that the true signal does not change much over a given time-step. So, they are two methods with similar assumptions, and it's not immediately clear to me which one is better. Do you have any further insight here?\r\n\r\nRegarding using known values for ```gamma```, we do provide the user with that option. However, it is still important to have estimation procedures here, since the time constant depends upon both the fluorophore binding kinetics and also on the calcium dynamics within the cell or imaged compartment, that latter of which may not be well characterized. I haven't had a chance to think through this more closely here, but my gut impression is that this estimate may depend more on the Poisson assumption, and so some more robust methods might be needed.\r\n\r\n@tamachado Any additional thoughts on this matter?"}}