Back to the main page.
Bug 2367 - ft_sourceanalysis: output contains source.method, consider removing
| Status | CLOSED WONTFIX |
| Reported | 2013-11-06 13:37:00 +0100 |
| Modified | 2018-01-26 09:49:52 +0100 |
| Product: | FieldTrip |
| Component: | core |
| Version: | unspecified |
| Hardware: | PC |
| Operating System: | Windows |
| Importance: | P3 normal |
| Assigned to: | Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen |
| URL: | |
| Tags: | |
| Depends on: | |
| Blocks: | |
| See also: |
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2013-11-06 13:37:48 +0100
TO DO: -check whether any code is using this info -if not, remove it. -if yes, check whether this code can be made independent of this. -do the above. -and then remove it.
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2013-12-01 20:59:40 +0100
It's used in ft_sourcdescriptives
Jens Klinzing - 2016-12-13 16:45:47 +0100
I'm currently working on ft_sourcedescriptives. Where would ft_sourcedescriptives get the method information if the field is removed (which is done by ft_datatype_source).
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2016-12-13 20:09:11 +0100
Hmm,good question :o)
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2016-12-14 09:14:31 +0100
I think that the 'method' field was mainly intended to make a distinction between the different single ways data could be represented in the 'trial' field. Once upon a time (and it may even still work) one could do a jackknife single trial type of source reconstruction, where each of the output 'trials' was a beamformer reconstruction, based on the covariance/csd matrix of all trials minus one. Also, a bootstrap or permutation based reshuffling of trials was possible, each of which giving a different 'method'. I am not sure whether we would still actively want to support these options. I see the benefit of making a clean implementation of ft_sourcedescriptives, where data is passed through ft_datatype_source. I guess we should decide whether the method field is passed on by this function, or whether we would allow for looking in the provenance (source.cfg.previous. ... . previous etc) to determine the 'method'. Adding Robert to CC to put it on his radar, so that he could join the discussion