wave_clus matlab program Search Results


wave_clus software package  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc wave_clus software package
Wave Clus Software Package, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/wave_clus software package/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wave_clus software package - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
spike sorting software wave_clus  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc spike sorting software wave_clus
Spike Sorting Software Wave Clus, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/spike sorting software wave_clus/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
spike sorting software wave_clus - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
wave_clus  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc wave_clus
Wave Clus, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/wave_clus/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wave_clus - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
wave_clus matlab program  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc wave_clus matlab program
Wave Clus Matlab Program, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/wave_clus matlab program/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wave_clus matlab program - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
wave_clus software toolbox  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc wave_clus software toolbox
Wave Clus Software Toolbox, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/wave_clus software toolbox/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wave_clus software toolbox - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
waveclus 3.0 matlab software package  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc waveclus 3.0 matlab software package
Waveclus 3.0 Matlab Software Package, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/waveclus 3.0 matlab software package/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
waveclus 3.0 matlab software package - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
automated waveclus 3.0 matlab software package  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc automated waveclus 3.0 matlab software package
Automated Waveclus 3.0 Matlab Software Package, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/automated waveclus 3.0 matlab software package/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
automated waveclus 3.0 matlab software package - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
wave_clus software  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc wave_clus software
Wave Clus Software, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/wave_clus software/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
wave_clus software - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
waveclus program  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc waveclus program
( A ) Latencies between the SN and DR spikes were measured; the minimum latency defined the SN origin of a DR spike. ( B ) Extracellular spike waveforms extracted from a spinal nerve recording and clustered using <t>WaveClus.</t> ( C ) Raster plot for each clustered waveform (denoted as Unit) under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions after matching the DR spikes with these in the SN. Note: capsaicin induced firing of specific units. ( D ) Instantaneous firing frequency of the all identified units shown in C in the DR and SN. ( E ) Firing rates of individual units identifies capsaicin-sensitive units. ( F ) Propagation failure (%) of all matched spike units under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. One-way ANOVA: F(2,117) = 17.7; p < 0.001; Tukey post hoc test: ***significant difference from CAP, p < 0.001. ( G ) Average firing rates for all multi-unit nerve recordings in the dataset ( n = 6) in SN and DR under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. Two-factor (nerve site, drug application) repeated measures ANOVA: main effects associated with drug application [F(2,10) = 6.38; p < 0.05], significant interaction between factors [F(2,10) = 10.74; p < 0.01]. Bonferroni post hoc test: *significant difference from control ( p < 0.05). ( H ) Units were divided into “C-type” and “A-type” based on the SN-DR latency (C: <1.2 m/s; A: >1.2 m/s) and propagation failure rate analyzed as in (F). Two-factor (fiber type, drug application) mixed-effects ANOVA: main effect associated with drug application [F(2,70) = 34.82, p < 0.001], significant interaction between factors [F(2,72) = 4.712, p < 0.05]. Sidak post hoc test: *significant difference between CAP+GABA and CAP, significant difference between A and C fibers ( p < 0.05). Metadata for quantifications presented in this figure can be found at https://archive.researchdata.leeds.ac.uk/1042/ . Code for spike sorting analysis is available at GitHub ( https://github.com/pnm4sfix/SpikePropagation ). DR, dorsal root; SN, spinal nerve.
Waveclus Program, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/waveclus program/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
waveclus program - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
spike clustering software wave_clus  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc spike clustering software wave_clus
( A ) Latencies between the SN and DR spikes were measured; the minimum latency defined the SN origin of a DR spike. ( B ) Extracellular spike waveforms extracted from a spinal nerve recording and clustered using <t>WaveClus.</t> ( C ) Raster plot for each clustered waveform (denoted as Unit) under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions after matching the DR spikes with these in the SN. Note: capsaicin induced firing of specific units. ( D ) Instantaneous firing frequency of the all identified units shown in C in the DR and SN. ( E ) Firing rates of individual units identifies capsaicin-sensitive units. ( F ) Propagation failure (%) of all matched spike units under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. One-way ANOVA: F(2,117) = 17.7; p < 0.001; Tukey post hoc test: ***significant difference from CAP, p < 0.001. ( G ) Average firing rates for all multi-unit nerve recordings in the dataset ( n = 6) in SN and DR under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. Two-factor (nerve site, drug application) repeated measures ANOVA: main effects associated with drug application [F(2,10) = 6.38; p < 0.05], significant interaction between factors [F(2,10) = 10.74; p < 0.01]. Bonferroni post hoc test: *significant difference from control ( p < 0.05). ( H ) Units were divided into “C-type” and “A-type” based on the SN-DR latency (C: <1.2 m/s; A: >1.2 m/s) and propagation failure rate analyzed as in (F). Two-factor (fiber type, drug application) mixed-effects ANOVA: main effect associated with drug application [F(2,70) = 34.82, p < 0.001], significant interaction between factors [F(2,72) = 4.712, p < 0.05]. Sidak post hoc test: *significant difference between CAP+GABA and CAP, significant difference between A and C fibers ( p < 0.05). Metadata for quantifications presented in this figure can be found at https://archive.researchdata.leeds.ac.uk/1042/ . Code for spike sorting analysis is available at GitHub ( https://github.com/pnm4sfix/SpikePropagation ). DR, dorsal root; SN, spinal nerve.
Spike Clustering Software Wave Clus, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/spike clustering software wave_clus/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
spike clustering software wave_clus - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
r2021a  (MathWorks Inc)
90
MathWorks Inc r2021a
( A ) Latencies between the SN and DR spikes were measured; the minimum latency defined the SN origin of a DR spike. ( B ) Extracellular spike waveforms extracted from a spinal nerve recording and clustered using <t>WaveClus.</t> ( C ) Raster plot for each clustered waveform (denoted as Unit) under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions after matching the DR spikes with these in the SN. Note: capsaicin induced firing of specific units. ( D ) Instantaneous firing frequency of the all identified units shown in C in the DR and SN. ( E ) Firing rates of individual units identifies capsaicin-sensitive units. ( F ) Propagation failure (%) of all matched spike units under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. One-way ANOVA: F(2,117) = 17.7; p < 0.001; Tukey post hoc test: ***significant difference from CAP, p < 0.001. ( G ) Average firing rates for all multi-unit nerve recordings in the dataset ( n = 6) in SN and DR under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. Two-factor (nerve site, drug application) repeated measures ANOVA: main effects associated with drug application [F(2,10) = 6.38; p < 0.05], significant interaction between factors [F(2,10) = 10.74; p < 0.01]. Bonferroni post hoc test: *significant difference from control ( p < 0.05). ( H ) Units were divided into “C-type” and “A-type” based on the SN-DR latency (C: <1.2 m/s; A: >1.2 m/s) and propagation failure rate analyzed as in (F). Two-factor (fiber type, drug application) mixed-effects ANOVA: main effect associated with drug application [F(2,70) = 34.82, p < 0.001], significant interaction between factors [F(2,72) = 4.712, p < 0.05]. Sidak post hoc test: *significant difference between CAP+GABA and CAP, significant difference between A and C fibers ( p < 0.05). Metadata for quantifications presented in this figure can be found at https://archive.researchdata.leeds.ac.uk/1042/ . Code for spike sorting analysis is available at GitHub ( https://github.com/pnm4sfix/SpikePropagation ). DR, dorsal root; SN, spinal nerve.
R2021a, supplied by MathWorks Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/r2021a/product/MathWorks Inc
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
r2021a - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
90/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


( A ) Latencies between the SN and DR spikes were measured; the minimum latency defined the SN origin of a DR spike. ( B ) Extracellular spike waveforms extracted from a spinal nerve recording and clustered using WaveClus. ( C ) Raster plot for each clustered waveform (denoted as Unit) under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions after matching the DR spikes with these in the SN. Note: capsaicin induced firing of specific units. ( D ) Instantaneous firing frequency of the all identified units shown in C in the DR and SN. ( E ) Firing rates of individual units identifies capsaicin-sensitive units. ( F ) Propagation failure (%) of all matched spike units under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. One-way ANOVA: F(2,117) = 17.7; p < 0.001; Tukey post hoc test: ***significant difference from CAP, p < 0.001. ( G ) Average firing rates for all multi-unit nerve recordings in the dataset ( n = 6) in SN and DR under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. Two-factor (nerve site, drug application) repeated measures ANOVA: main effects associated with drug application [F(2,10) = 6.38; p < 0.05], significant interaction between factors [F(2,10) = 10.74; p < 0.01]. Bonferroni post hoc test: *significant difference from control ( p < 0.05). ( H ) Units were divided into “C-type” and “A-type” based on the SN-DR latency (C: <1.2 m/s; A: >1.2 m/s) and propagation failure rate analyzed as in (F). Two-factor (fiber type, drug application) mixed-effects ANOVA: main effect associated with drug application [F(2,70) = 34.82, p < 0.001], significant interaction between factors [F(2,72) = 4.712, p < 0.05]. Sidak post hoc test: *significant difference between CAP+GABA and CAP, significant difference between A and C fibers ( p < 0.05). Metadata for quantifications presented in this figure can be found at https://archive.researchdata.leeds.ac.uk/1042/ . Code for spike sorting analysis is available at GitHub ( https://github.com/pnm4sfix/SpikePropagation ). DR, dorsal root; SN, spinal nerve.

Journal: PLOS Biology

Article Title: Dorsal root ganglia control nociceptive input to the central nervous system

doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001958

Figure Lengend Snippet: ( A ) Latencies between the SN and DR spikes were measured; the minimum latency defined the SN origin of a DR spike. ( B ) Extracellular spike waveforms extracted from a spinal nerve recording and clustered using WaveClus. ( C ) Raster plot for each clustered waveform (denoted as Unit) under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions after matching the DR spikes with these in the SN. Note: capsaicin induced firing of specific units. ( D ) Instantaneous firing frequency of the all identified units shown in C in the DR and SN. ( E ) Firing rates of individual units identifies capsaicin-sensitive units. ( F ) Propagation failure (%) of all matched spike units under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. One-way ANOVA: F(2,117) = 17.7; p < 0.001; Tukey post hoc test: ***significant difference from CAP, p < 0.001. ( G ) Average firing rates for all multi-unit nerve recordings in the dataset ( n = 6) in SN and DR under control, CAP and CAP+GABA conditions. Two-factor (nerve site, drug application) repeated measures ANOVA: main effects associated with drug application [F(2,10) = 6.38; p < 0.05], significant interaction between factors [F(2,10) = 10.74; p < 0.01]. Bonferroni post hoc test: *significant difference from control ( p < 0.05). ( H ) Units were divided into “C-type” and “A-type” based on the SN-DR latency (C: <1.2 m/s; A: >1.2 m/s) and propagation failure rate analyzed as in (F). Two-factor (fiber type, drug application) mixed-effects ANOVA: main effect associated with drug application [F(2,70) = 34.82, p < 0.001], significant interaction between factors [F(2,72) = 4.712, p < 0.05]. Sidak post hoc test: *significant difference between CAP+GABA and CAP, significant difference between A and C fibers ( p < 0.05). Metadata for quantifications presented in this figure can be found at https://archive.researchdata.leeds.ac.uk/1042/ . Code for spike sorting analysis is available at GitHub ( https://github.com/pnm4sfix/SpikePropagation ). DR, dorsal root; SN, spinal nerve.

Article Snippet: Extracted spike waveforms were sorted using the WaveClus program [ ] in Matlab to define individual neuronal units underlying the extracellular signal.

Techniques: Control