Suggested techniques to add

[MaaikevS]

I went through the methods clean up file and I have a few suggestions for techniques to add:

calcium imaging
fiber photometry
pupillometry / eye tracking
ultrasound
virus transfection
neuronal tracing (umbrella term for anterograde and retrograde tracing)
retrograde tracing
voltammetry
optogenetics (umbrella term for optogenetic inhibition and stimulation)

[lzehl]

@MaaikevS thanks for your suggestions and going through the methods clean up of the old system.

@UlrikeS91 & @tgbugs could you please add your comments to the list?
Please see my comments below.

1. calcium imaging: agreed, that one should be added.
2. fiber photometry: agreed, that one should be added.
3. pupillometry / eye tracking: two different techniques, I agree to register "pupillometry". "eye tracking" is too general I would say, because there are so many different ways of tracking the eye movemen. I suggest for now to register "electrooculography", "video-oculography" as two eye tracking techniques. There are also special contact lenses and eye coils ... not sure how to register those techniques (they are mentioned as eye-attached tracking in wikipedia...). In addition there might be more non-invasive techniques for gaze tracking...
4. ultrasound: I suggest to register this as "ultrasound imaging" (because ultrasound is also just the term for the respectively used frequencies)
5. virus transfection: maybe better: "viral-mediated transfection"?
6. neuronal tracing: To my taste this is too generic (I would rather stick with the anterograde / retrograde tracing) but we have some other superclasses in already... I leave that to @UlrikeS91 & @tgbugs
7. retrograde tracing: agreed, that one should be added.
8. voltammetry: agreed, that one should be added.
9. optogenetics: this one is an experimental approach and should not be added. More detailed methods should be given for optogenetics (too broad in the meaning for a technique)

[UlrikeS91]

1. calcium imaging: agreed, that one should be added.
2. fiber photometry: agreed, that one should be added.
3. ultrasound: I suggest to register this as "ultrasound imaging" (because ultrasound is also just the term for the respectively used frequencies)
4. retrograde tracing: agreed, that one should be added.
5. voltammetry: agreed, that one should be added.
6. optogenetics: this one is an experimental approach and should not be added. More detailed methods should be given for optogenetics (too broad in the meaning for a technique)

I agree with @lzehl.

3. pupillometry / eye tracking: two different techniques, I agree to register "pupillometry". "eye tracking" is too general I would say, because there are so many different ways of tracking the eye movemen. I suggest for now to register "electrooculography", "video-oculography" as two eye tracking techniques. There are also special contact lenses and eye coils ... not sure how to register those techniques (they are mentioned as eye-attached tracking in wikipedia...). In addition there might be more non-invasive techniques for gaze tracking...

"Pupillometry" is fine. I'm not sure about your comments related to the "eye-tracking" here. The most correct term is what you already wrote: oculography = eye movement recording. I think it makes sense to capture the more specific ones (electrooculography and video-oculography) but I do think that we should add the overarching term as well, preferably with "eye movement recording" and "eye tracking" as synonyms.

5. virus transfection: maybe better: "viral-mediated transfection"?

I think "viral-mediated" is wrong English, either "virus-mediated transfection" or simply "viral transfection" should be correct.

6. neuronal tracing: To my taste this is too generic (I would rather stick with the anterograde / retrograde tracing) but we have some other superclasses in already... I leave that to @UlrikeS91 & @tgbugs

I think it's not wrong to capture some overarching terms. If we are totally honest, a bunch of the techniques we have captured are overarching to something. For example, retrograde tracing would be overarching to retrograde monosynaptic tracing. The tricky part is experimental approach vs. technique vs. something too detailed that includes more than just a technique.
For example, fluorescent retrograde monosynaptic tracing would be too detailed. Fluorescent is irrelevant for the technique and actually wrong. The tracing isn't fluorescent, the tracer is, and you may have used "fluorescence microscopy" to visualize that fluorescent tracer. Monosynaptic is important, though. There is polysynaptic tracing which gives totally different results and builds on other (biological) mechanisms of the cell and the tracer (e.g. active replication of a viral tracer following a monosynaptic transport).
Little detour here, sorry. But "neuronal tracing" could be used for some data(sets); the exact information may not be known anymore (e.g. dataset with neuronal reconstructions that (re)used such data but didn't care about the tracing details) or some sort of novel tracer was used where the exact mechanism isn't known yet or a tracer was used that is borderline between some properties that makes it hard to choose a detailed tracing technique (e.g. when the bidirectional spread (which virtually all tracers do) is so substantial that "retrograde" would be wrong but not substantial enough that "bidirectional" would be right).