Np! Thnx for the answer. For the new Nuc SegID thingy, do you want the ##### alone in gsheet or also the segment included (not merged) in final link?
1 Like
Let’s leave out the nucleus, I think it’s fine to just have the Seg ID in the sheet. Thanks!
1 Like
Good question, let’s leave “hits edge” for just the branches.
1 Like
Hi all!
I’ve noticed that many have moved off of the SAC spreadsheet, and are working on some other projects. We could use a little push to get this done, so if anyone is inclined to come back to the sheet, please do!
Also, just wanted to do a little informal polling to see if anything more fun/motivating on other projects when compared with SACs, of course we want this project to be engaging as well!
TIA, and thanks for your work on the sheet so far!
2 Likes
Is it enough of a ‘rush’/push that I/we can’t be given a couple more days to finish them -all- off? I had some health related issues (mine and/or parents) that prevented me from working on SACs/EW2/much of anything else the past 3+ weeks, but I think I can go through them all before Thurs/Fri (at the latest) if y’all don’t need them finished ‘now’/today.
Sure, that would be fine if you are interested in trying to get them completed. Sorry to hear about your/your parent’s health issues, hope everyone is doing OK!
1 Like
Thanks! Yeah things are better now. 
I’ll have things finished before weekend’s over. (if not before that, sweet sweet SACs lol).
1 Like
Not a question, I just can’t find a thread here in the forums more appropriate to post this, but the OFF-SAC entries in the gsheet (minus some that are WIP/NEED HELP etc by other folk) are all done! Now to finish up the ON-SACs.
Great, thanks!
1 Like
I feel a little responsible for that proportionally small amount of SACs being done, lol. Especially, that I was quite active with the MFs earlier. I’m just not a huge fan of thin long wiggly branches. Here’s how it looks for me:
- annotating > proofreading,
- straight thick branches (MFs) > twisty thin twigs,
- condensed convoluted cells (e.g. bipolars) > large sparse cells (SACs, parasol-like neurons, etc.).
That’s why, after initial interest in the SACs, I’ve switched back to annotating in BANC. Especially, that there’s still quite a few unannotated cells there.
3 Likes
It’s all good, not every cell type is for everyone!
Thanks for the feedback on your interests, it’s helpful to know!
2 Likes
I’m kinda the opposite, lol. I tried doing annotation cell type work in FW and got bored really fast (more or less when I stopped working in the FW dataset), having to learn each cell type from every other and then sub-types ME 1 vs ME 2 vs ME 2a etc is just not something that peeks my interest. I am more of a proofread kinda guy and go through as many different cell types as possible to see all the different shapes, forms and sizes there might be in any new dataset. SACs have a special place in my heart (along w/ BPs and the long ‘spider’ like neurons we used to get in EW marathons) b/c they are cell types that have a lot of funny, happy memories ‘attached’ to them and I like the challenge of finding impossible connections (or impossibly thin?) that end up working out (not mergers).
I think the only thing I like more than SACs and/or datasets of new ‘animals’ and/or ‘locations’ (cortex, retina, hippocampus etc) is cleaning up mergers, like EW2 has, like Pyr has/d and very much like the BANC’s giga-mergers, cleaning them up and claiming all of those cells for ‘me’ (well as much as this is applicable in pyr/ew2 w/o lightbulb and/or BANC bot to backbone proofread stuff) and knowing that exactly b/c they were in mergers there’s little to no possibility i’ve been unknowingly co-working in a same cell w/ anyone else concurrently.
Which is why before ew2 I used to do pyr, then when gsheet entries would run out (and until we were given new ones) id go temp back to unmergifying stuff in banc. With ew2 in the mix it’s probs gonna be similar, ew2 > pyr > banc mergers, or ew2 > banc mergers if no pyr avail.
I will say though that idk why but what i really like in ew2 and pyr vs banc is split is SOOOOO much easier, both selecting red/blue points and then the actual splitting is just somehow better/faster. Also in pyr and ew2 merging is so much faster than banc! Cant compare w/ FW b/c I don’t remember how merge/split behaved there, plus in FW just being able to split stuff vs having to leave large gaps like we used to do in EW was just so novel that probs overwrote any potential ‘issues’ that might have existed that I notice-d in BANC etc.
2 Likes
And again, I’m the polar opposite - I really don’t like mergers and usually release and audible “sigh” whenever I see even a small one 
However, I don’t mind merging stuff, especially with the multimerger toll, we have for some time now and the automatic refresh of the meshes after a merging or splitting operation.
1 Like
lol, we release whole different sighs when we see mergers. Contempt and despair vs contentment and joy. 
1 Like
And I’m so happy, that someone is taking care of those mergers, especially in the lamina. When I saw in the first time I was convinced, we’ll have to skip annotating all the R, L and C neurons, lol.
1 Like
SBs do not have axons, right? This is -just- a fused merger at the CB and not a direct proof of otherwise? lol
2 Likes
According to this article (search for " Inner Plexiform Layer Neurons: Amacrine, Interplexiform, and Ganglion Cells") they can have processes, that might be axons, however, it has not been determined yet.
1 Like
Thanks for all the feedback! Something for everyone I suppose! 
2 Likes
Hmm very curious… I would not expect to see an axon on these cells, buuut this connection is looking somewhat convincing. Let me ask for some 2nd opinions and get back to you.
2 Likes