Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Comparison of Neuroelectrophysiology Databases

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.15041 v2 pith:YU6KPNWQ submitted 2023-06-26 q-bio.QM cs.DB

classification q-bio.QMcs.DB
keywords dataarchivestoolsanalysisbraincommunityneuroelectrophysiologyneurophysiology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

As data sharing has become more prevalent, three pillars - archives, standards, and analysis tools - have emerged as critical components in facilitating effective data sharing and collaboration. This paper compares four freely available intracranial neuroelectrophysiology data repositories: Data Archive for the BRAIN Initiative (DABI), Distributed Archives for Neurophysiology Data Integration (DANDI), OpenNeuro, and Brain-CODE. The aim of this review is to describe archives that provide researchers with tools to store, share, and reanalyze both human and non-human neurophysiology data based on criteria that are of interest to the neuroscientific community. The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) and Neurodata Without Borders (NWB) are utilized by these archives to make data more accessible to researchers by implementing a common standard. As the necessity for integrating large-scale analysis into data repository platforms continues to grow within the neuroscientific community, this article will highlight the various analytical and customizable tools developed within the chosen archives that may advance the field of neuroinformatics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools