Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Jul 20.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Comput Sci. 2022 Dec 29;3(1):71–85. doi: 10.1038/s43588-022-00390-2

Figure 4: Comparison between CILDS and methods that do not include a latent dynamical model.

Figure 4:

Here we compare the performance of three methods at recovering ground truth latent variables in simulation: one with deconvolution and latent dynamics (CILDS), one with de-convolution but no latent dynamics (CIFA), and one with no deconvolution and no latent dynamics (FA). The simulation parameters are GCaMP6f with 94 neurons and medium noise, as in Fig. 3d. (a) Accuracy of latent variable recovery for CILDS (orange), CIFA (brown), and FA (blue) across a wide range of latent timescales. Note that the R2 can be less than zero because these results are cross-validated. The CILDS curve shown here is the same as in Fig. 3d. (b) Mean calcium decay time constant estimated using CILDS (orange) and CIFA (brown) for different simulated latent timescales. FA does not estimate a calcium decay time constant. The dashed black line indicates the ground truth decay time constant. In both panels, coloured error bars indicate standard deviation, and black error bars indicate standard error across n=2000 latent variables (see Methods).