Fix electrode selection in Axona raw recording

[letiziasignorelli]

I'm proposing this PR to fix #1454

@zm711

[zm711]

@alejoe91 do you know this datalad error? it only happened for one dataset on the 3.9 python vs the 3.11 python runs. It's completely unrelated to this PR, but if you recognize the issue then I won't spend time digging into it.

[alejoe91]

@zm711 maybe just a random failure, re-triggered to see what happens!

[zm711]

I tried retriggering once, but yeah let's see if maybe it was just a timing issue.

EDIT; --Yep okay just a random ci failure. cool cool

[h-mayorquin]

Gin data for this? : O

[zm711]

Gin data for this? : O

You mean you want extra gin data? This was a bug in the original implementation just because we didn't know which channel was which. If you use the current gin data with the spikeinterface extractor you'll see that the channels are just 1-16 or 1-32 rather than being meaningful.

[h-mayorquin]

Thanks. I did not realize we already had the gin data as I came from the neuroconv trail.

[zm711]

@letiziasignorelli just wanted to see if you'd have bandwidth to work on this before the end of the year :) ? Otherwise I'll change the tag to future for now so that we just let you get back to it when you want....

[letiziasignorelli]

@zm711 I replied to all comments, and from my side I was just waiting for approval :). Is there anything I should still work on/change?

[zm711]

Did you forget to push the changes? I don't see any of the changes--(I see your comments, but not a commit where you have the changes). Once they are pushed here then the last thing is just resolving the conflict in the author doc :)

[letiziasignorelli]

Okok you're right, I'll push the changes in the next few days. Thanks :)

[samuelgarcia]

Hi @letiziasignorelli. Thanks for this. Sorry the ultra lon delay. I will read it more carrfully, I am not sure to follow entirely the logic. Give me another read.

[zm711]

@samuelgarcia just so you know the background (although I really appreciate the extra read :))

In our original implementation we were just giving the channels arbitrary names like range(0,32) when in fact the channels have actual names depending on which tetrode they are (so it should be something like A1, A2, A3, A4, B1, B2, B3, B4 instead of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.

But I'm just trying to make sure the slicing of channels when some aren't turned on will be correct.

[h-mayorquin]

Maybe we should merge this? It's been six months.

[zm711]

Let's ping Sam for tomorrow and if he doesn't respond then I can fix the merge conflict. You want to give this one more careful read to make sure you understand the slicing logic?

[h-mayorquin]

I remember reading it back then. I can take a second look if you pint-point the specific part that you don't feel confident about.

[samuelgarcia]

OK lets merge.

[zm711]

Thanks @letiziasignorelli and sorry for the delay!