“…In particular, calcium imaging with two-photon microscopy (Svoboda and Yasuda, 2006;Mostany et al, 2015) and microendoscopy with miniscopes or fiber photometry (Ghosh et al, 2011;Liberti et al, 2017;Jacob et al, 2018;Aharoni et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2019) have provided key insights, such as how developing cortical networks undergo drastic transitions (Golshani et al, 2009;Rochefort et al, 2009) or how large neuronal ensembles encode spatial navigation (Dombeck et al, 2010). Calcium imaging offers several distinct advantages over traditional electrode recording techniques (Grewe and Helmchen, 2009;Grienberger and Konnerth, 2012): (1) it can be combined with genetic approaches (e.g., Cre-Lox) to probe neuronal activity in specific sub-populations of neurons (Goel et al, 2018;Yaeger et al, 2019) and glia (Srinivasan et al, 2016), either in specific subcellular compartments (e.g., axon boutons, dendritic spines, glial microdomains; Cichon and Gan, 2015;Broussard et al, 2018) or in specific brain regions or cortical layers (Lacefield et al, 2019); (2) recordings can be carried out over periods of days or even weeks (Chen et al, 2013;He et al, 2018); (3) recordings can be made simultaneously in a large population of hundreds or thousands of neurons in multiple brain regions (e.g., an entire sub-network; Sofroniew et al, 2016); (4) calcium imaging can also be combined with optogenetic manipulations, which makes it possible to perform all-optical probing of circuit function (Packer et al, 2015); (5) recordings can be performed in freely moving animals, providing a key link between circuit activity and behavior (Lin and Schnitzer, 2016); and (6) calcium imaging is less invasive than traditional electrode recordings (e.g., tetrodes, silicon probes). Another advantage the technique offers is the ability to precisely map the relative spatial location of groups of neurons.…”