<p>NI data acquisition cards offer a possibility of synchronising data acquisition with the pulses of a 80 MHz Ti:Sapphire laser. This supposedly helps improve the signal to noise ratio, since the true fluorescence signals should be time-locked to the laser pulses, while electrical noise in the PMT amplifier circuits and noise from the PMT itself are not.</p>

<p>Has anyone done a head-to-head comparison of SNR on a two-photon microscope with and without triggered acquisition?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-01T18:52:19.363Z
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a highly technical question without any cognitive sciences aspect to it. Since it is an interesting and well-researched question I would recommend migration to Biology.SE or comparable site. It might get better answers there as I am pretty certain it will receive no answers here.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-02T11:32:11.653Z
SE just shut down a proposal for a site dedicated to questions such as this (http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/99716/neuroscience) suggesting that it would drain audience and resources from the CogSci site. I think as most of the followers of the proposal would've argued, and your comment confirms, this isn't the case.
Petr Znamenskiy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-02T11:54:55.610Z
Curently Bio and CogSci are the sites for Neuroscience and this topic is shared between the two sites. Bio would survive happily with Neuro excluded, but CogSci has a hard time as it is. The number of basic neuroscientists active on the two sites are not more than a small handful. I doubt a dedicated site would survive. One way or another, your chances on getting an answer on your question are better at Bio than here.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-06T22:14:59.147Z
As [discussed on meta](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/2136/21), questions like this are since considered to be welcome here, and I thus reopened this question. This is a change in how such questions generally were treated in the past, hence the mixed signals. My apologies.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-07T11:22:46.117Z
@StevenJeuris,  I have never said it is offtopic here and +1d. Just trying to get this great question get the attention it deserves.  Dupes are discouraged across sites, hence explaining my vote.
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-14T14:24:44.847Z
Great question!
Dylan Richard Muir
<neuroscience><neuroimaging>
Is there a tangible benefit of synchronising the sample clock to the laser pulses in a resonant scanning two-photon microscope?
Petr Znamenskiy
# Is there a tangible benefit of synchronising the sample clock to the laser pulses in a resonant scanning two-photon microscope?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-01)

NI data acquisition cards offer a possibility of synchronising data acquisition with the pulses of a 80 MHz Ti:Sapphire laser. This supposedly helps improve the signal to noise ratio, since the true fluorescence signals should be time-locked to the laser pulses, while electrical noise in the PMT amplifier circuits and noise from the PMT itself are not.

Has anyone done a head-to-head comparison of SNR on a two-photon microscope with and without triggered acquisition?

**Tags:** neuroscience, neuroimaging

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a highly technical question without any cognitive sciences aspect to it. Since it is an interesting and well-researched question I would recommend migration to Biology.SE or comparable site. It might get better answers there as I am pretty certain it will receive no answers here.  
> **username_0**: SE just shut down a proposal for a site dedicated to questions such as this (http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/99716/neuroscience) suggesting that it would drain audience and resources from the CogSci site. I think as most of the followers of the proposal would've argued, and your comment confirms, this isn't the case.  
> **username_1**: Curently Bio and CogSci are the sites for Neuroscience and this topic is shared between the two sites. Bio would survive happily with Neuro excluded, but CogSci has a hard time as it is. The number of basic neuroscientists active on the two sites are not more than a small handful. I doubt a dedicated site would survive. One way or another, your chances on getting an answer on your question are better at Bio than here.  
> **username_2**: As [discussed on meta](http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/2136/21), questions like this are since considered to be welcome here, and I thus reopened this question. This is a change in how such questions generally were treated in the past, hence the mixed signals. My apologies.  
> **username_1**: @StevenJeuris,  I have never said it is offtopic here and +1d. Just trying to get this great question get the attention it deserves.  Dupes are discouraged across sites, hence explaining my vote.  
> **username_3**: Great question!  

---

## 0 answers

