search

ReScience / submissions

ReScience C submissions
28 stars 7 forks source link

Reproduction of a comparison between operant and classical conditioning of identical stimuli in tethered Drosophila #24

Open brembs opened 4 years ago

brembs commented 4 years ago

Original article: Brembs B and Heisenberg M (2000): The Operant and the Classical in Conditioned Orientation of Drosophila melanogaster at the Flight Simulator. Learn Mem. 7(2): 104–115. doi: 10.1101/lm.7.2.104 PDF URL original article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311324/pdf/x2.pdf PDF URL submitted article: https://github.com/brembs/DFS_reproduction/blob/master/article.pdf Metadata URL: https://github.com/brembs/DFS_reproduction/blob/master/DFSreproduction.yaml Code URL:
https://github.com/brembs/DFS_reproduction/tree/master/evaluation_code

Scientific domain:
Neurobiology Programming language:
Turbo Pascal, R, C++ Suggested editor:

gdetor commented 2 years ago

Hi @brembs any updates?

brembs commented 2 years ago

It's still on my list, but new things keep coming up. Once there is an opening, I'll finish it. Just don't know when this will be.

rougier commented 1 year ago

@brembs Can we consider closing this issue or do you intend to work on it? We'll soon hit the 1000 days target since submision :)

brembs commented 1 year ago

I've always intended to work on it, but given what other projects I have, it seems like too much work for a very small improvement on the manuscript. Working on the text is not an issue, but if the example I showed is not sufficient to show that I could in principle do the same thing with the rest of the data, then I'm afraid I must pass, sorry.

rougier commented 1 year ago

What is blocking actually ? If this is he conversion to ReScience template, I can take care of that if you want.

brembs commented 1 year ago

No, IIRC, the reviewers felt that taking one dataset as an example was not sufficient, I needed to take the other, analogous datasets that made up the other figures in the original publication and generate the other figures as well. It's essentially doing the exact same pipeline I did for the first version and repeat that pipeline for the other figures. It's not completely unreasonable, but it adds nothing other than volume to the paper, IMHO. It makes the paper more 'complete' in that I haven't reproduced just a single figure of the original article,but the majority of figures.

rougier commented 1 year ago

Ok. We can leave the submission open just in case you find some spare time in the coming weeks.