Back to the main page.
Bug 1468 - read_brainvision_eeg.m memory problems
| Status | CLOSED FIXED |
| Reported | 2012-05-10 13:58:00 +0200 |
| Modified | 2012-08-23 10:48:54 +0200 |
| Product: | FieldTrip |
| Component: | fileio |
| Version: | unspecified |
| Hardware: | All |
| Operating System: | All |
| Importance: | P3 normal |
| Assigned to: | Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen |
| URL: | |
| Tags: | |
| Depends on: | |
| Blocks: | |
| See also: |
Joaquín Morís - 2012-05-10 13:58:50 +0200
Error detected in Windows Vista, Matlab R200b, Fieltrip 20120506. In read_brainvision_eeg.m after Brainvision data files are read, in the first two file formats (binary, multiplexed, with Binary Format int_16 or int_32) the following code is used: (Lines 38-39 and 48-49) % compute real microvolts using the calibration factor (resolution) res = sparse(diag(hdr.resolution)); dat = res * dat; When long files are opened, this tends to produce an Out of memory error in the last instruction, as it tries to multiply in a single operation. Changing the code so that the multiplication takes place for each channel separately is not as fast, but it is more memory efficient. A solution is proposed below, nonetheless, it is still way more inefficient when it comes to memory use that pop_loadvb from EEGLAB, at least for the file formats mentioned before. Suggested code improvement: % compute real microvolts using the calibration factor (resolution) res = sparse(diag(hdr.resolution)); try dat = res * dat; catch ME if strcmp (ME.identifier,'MATLAB:nomem') for ChannelToMultiply = 1:size(dat,1) dat (ChannelToMultiply,:) = dat (ChannelToMultiply,:) * hdr.resolution(ChannelToMultiply); end; end; end;
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2012-05-16 07:42:51 +0200
Hi Joaquin, What about looping over the columns? i.e. for i = 1:size(dat,2) dat(:,j)=res*dat(:,j); end This would be much more efficient in terms of cache, so the increased number of iterations could be outweighed by this (versus the looping over channels). JM
Joaquín Morís - 2012-05-16 18:10:48 +0200
(In reply to comment #1) Hi! It can work too, it seems to be a nice solution. However, I don't understand why it is better to use diagonal matrix res instead of hdr.resolution, it should be more efficient (unless there is a specific reason I don't know about). The code would then be: for CurrentColumn = 1:size(dat,2) dat(:,CurrentColumn)=hdr.resolution*dat(:,CurrentColumn); end Joaquín
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2012-07-17 09:36:56 +0200
Hi Joaquin, sorry for not having addressed this one. It kind of escaped our attention. Would your analysis still benefit from a change in the code? If so, I'll change it, but could I then ask you to test it? Thanks, Jan-Mathijs
Joaquín Morís - 2012-07-17 12:34:12 +0200
(In reply to comment #3) Hi Jan! I've already changed it in my own copy of Fieldtrip, so I don't need it per se, but I think it would be an improvement of the code and useful for other users. I'd gladly test any code change and report back. Thanks! Joaquín