Tools for Generation of Hybrid recordings

[yger]

This PR adds to the generation module the possibility to create hybrid recordings. These start from an existing recording and inject known units for benchmarking.

In particular, the user has can retrieve templates from a template database or estimate them from an initial spike sorting output.

The templates can be manipulated with selection, rescalilng and relocation to generate hybrid recordings of jincreasing complexity.

Importantly, a pre-eetimated motion can be used to inject spikes following the existing drift in the recording.

A how to page to showcase all these options is available here: https://spikeinterface--2436.org.readthedocs.build/en/2436/how_to/benchmark_with_hybrid_recordings.html

[yger]

This PR depends on #2410

[JoeZiminski]

I am very fascinated by this PR and the somewhat mysterious 'Hybrid' recordings, sounds cool! Could you extend the PR message with an explanation to the naive (me) 😄 ?

[alejoe91]

Ready for final review here. See How To docs here: https://spikeinterface--2436.org.readthedocs.build/en/2436/how_to/benchmark_with_hybrid_recordings.html

[zm711]

I was tagged, but I can't find where. Happy to comment on something if my opinion was desired. Just got an alert this morning, but now looking I can't find it :)

[alejoe91]

I was tagged, but I can't find where. Happy to comment on something if my opinion was desired. Just got an alert this morning, but now looking I can't find it :)

It was about naming. Now one of the parameter is templates_in_uV, but I think it should be are_templates_in_uV? Not sure though since it's not a function

[zm711]

Cool, I think it is confusing right now because we have two arguments templates and templates_in_uV which seems to imply that we need to give both (templates and the same templates scaled). The docstring tells us one is a bool, but I do think something like scale_templates or return_scaled (if we need to be consistent) would be clear. are_templates_in_uV could also work with the assumption that we are forcing the user to answer the question, but I think the scale term would be more consistent to the library.

[alejoe91]

Cool, I think it is confusing right now because we have two arguments templates and templates_in_uV which seems to imply that we need to give both (templates and the same templates scaled). The docstring tells us one is a bool, but I do think something like scale_templates or return_scaled (if we need to be consistent) would be clear. are_templates_in_uV could also work with the assumption that we are forcing the user to answer the question, but I think the scale term would be more consistent to the library.

@zm711 we need to know if the provided templates are already scaled or not, so we don't want a verb IMO, so I'm leaning towards are_templates_in_uV, because it's indeed a question we need the user to provide info for :)

[zm711]

@zm711 we need to know if the provided templates are already scaled or not, so we don't want a verb IMO, so I'm leaning towards are_templates_in_uV, because it's indeed a question we need the user to provide info for :)

Then yes I think that are_templates_in_uV is better. I guess my point would be something like are_templates_scaled because our library has an equivalence between uV and scaled.

[alejoe91]

Then yes I think that are_templates_in_uV is better. I guess my point would be something like are_templates_scaled because our library has an equivalence between uV and scaled.

I like that!

[alejoe91]

Thank you all for the input! I think this will super important for future benchmarks.

@JoeZiminski see updated PR description :)

Merging!

[JoeZiminski]

Cheers, that's awesome! Look forward to trying it