8000 Updated support for QZFM_UCL data #2130 by neurofractal · Pull Request #2242 · fieldtrip/fieldtrip · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Updated support for QZFM_UCL data #2130 #2242

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

neurofractal
Copy link
Contributor

#2130

  • So we are n 8000 ow thinking of including HelmetManufacturer and HelmetManufacturersModelName in the json file. The latter would contain a text field with something like: 'slotnumber-56_location-wholehead_fit-custom'

  • I have used the grad.type = 'QZFM_UCL' to differentiate ourselves from other facilities using QZFM sensors

All seems to work fine with existing test data.

  • Issue: I can't seem to get ft_channelselection working without providing a third input argument (i.e. it's not picking up the senstype automatically for some reason)

fieldtrip#2130

- So we are now thinking of including HelmetManufacturer and HelmetManufacturersModelName in the json file. The latter would contain a text field with something like: 'slotnumber-56_location-wholehead_fit-custom'

- I have used the grad.type = 'QZFM_UCL' to differentiate ourselves from other facilities using QZFM sensors

All seems to work fine with existing test data.

Issue: I can't seem to get ft_channelselection working without providing a third input argument (i.e. it's not picking up the senstype automatically for some reason)
@neurofractal
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey any updates on this @robertoostenveld?

@schoffelen
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @neurofractal Rob, sorry for having dropped this for so long. I think that the PR is still relevant, no? Would you still be willing to work on this a bit? If so, that would be great, perhaps we can get things on track again. Would you mind first to resolve the current conflict, and that we take it from there?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants
0