Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature request] Different diametrizer for each neurite type #87

Open
adrien-berchet opened this issue Sep 21, 2023 · 2 comments
Open
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@adrien-berchet
Copy link
Member

adrien-berchet commented Sep 21, 2023

Describe the feature

Currently we can only provide one diametrizer that is used for all neurite types (though a diametrizer can be configured differently for each neurite type). I think it could be interesting to be able to provide one different diametrizer for each neurite type. WDYT?

Example Use

A tmd_parameters.json could have an entry like:

"diameter_params": {
    "basal_dendrite": {
        "method": "uniform",
        "diameter": 0.6
    },
    "apical_dendrite": {
        "method": "default"
    },
    "axon": {
        "method": "M1"
    }
}

or it could be directly included in each neurite type config, which would make even more sense:

{
    "basal_dendrite": {
        "all other params..." : "...",
        "diameter_params": {
            "method": "uniform",
            "diameter": 0.6
        }
    },
    "apical_dendrite": {
        "all other params..." : "...",
        "diameter_params": {
            "method": "default"
        }
    },
    "grow_types": ["basal_dendrite", "apical_dendrite"],
    "...": "..."
}

Use cases

I don't know if such a use case is relevant for a user, I just realized that currently we can't synthesize morphologies with this kind of configurations.

@adrien-berchet adrien-berchet added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 21, 2023
@arnaudon
Copy link
Contributor

we can do it if its needed, otherwise I wouldn't do it 'for free'

@adrien-berchet
Copy link
Member Author

I agree, it's just an idea but let's wait to see if this use case actually arises.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants