Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

(A) Example event-free recording (Top) and power density spectrum of the data (Bottom). (B) Top: Data trace from (A) superimposed with simulated synaptic events. Bottom: Amplitude histogram of simulated events for a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 10.8 dB. Solid line represents the log-normal distribution from which event amplitudes were drawn; Inset shows individual simulated events. (C) Recall, precision and F1 score for five detection methods with simulated events that have a 2× faster decay than in Figure 3. (D) Same as in (C), but for events with a 4.5× slower decay time constant. Note that we did not adjust detection hyperparameters for the comparisons in (C) and (D). (E) Runtime of five different synaptic event detection methods for a 120 s section of data recorded with 50 kHz sampling rate. Average wall-time of five runs. * miniML was run using a GPU, and data were downsampled to 20 kHz for the Bayesian analysis. (F) Normalized amplitude of the peaks in the different methods’ detection traces (‘detection peak amplitude’) versus normalized event amplitude. A linear dependence indicates that detection traces contain implicit amplitude information, which will cause a strong threshold dependence of the detection result. Note that miniML’s output does not contain amplitude information. (G) F1 score versus threshold (in % of default threshold value, range 5–195) for different methods.