Back to the main page.

Bug 2804 - ft_specest_wavelet: evaluate and incorporate Michael's suggested correction of wavelets

Status NEW
Reported 2015-01-08 09:09:00 +0100
Modified 2015-02-25 07:47:16 +0100
Product: FieldTrip
Component: specest
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC
Operating System: Mac OS
Importance: P5 normal
Assigned to: Roemer van der Meij
Depends on:
See also:

Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2015-01-08 09:09:07 +0100

Created attachment 691 suggested fix Below is a copy and paste from an e-mail exchange between Michael and the Nijmegen crew: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ please find attached a SUGGESTION for a fix of the missing wavelet correction. Please note that this is definitely not the last word (it's a HACK in fact). I found it relatively difficult to bring textbooks and code together, partially because early in the code, time-scaling (producing the carrier frequencies of interest) and the width parameter go together in the variables "st" and "sf". After some lengthy calculations I find that the correction is simply dependent on the initial "cfg.width" which I find correct/plausible. Inspecting the resulting wavelets for non-zero mean, I find that the corrected ones have a mean closer to zero than the original ones esp. for 3 cycles. Please check the code and let me know whether you come to similar conclusions... Best wishes for the holiday season, Michael On 12/09/2014 12:27 PM, Robert Oostenveld wrote: Hi Michael If I recall correctly, the wavelet code originated from Markus Siegel, but the current version was largely (re)written by Roemer van der Meij (CC) when Roemer modularized the specest code. Perhaps Roemer is already able to answer your question about “X”, otherwise I’ll have to look into it in more detail. cheers Robert On 27 Nov 2014, at 14:13, Michael Wibral <> wrote: Hi Jan Mathijs, hi Robert, I am trying to improve the ft_specest_wavelet function in FT by making it work for very small widths ("3 cycles" colloquially speaking). I am aware that the frequencies that are picked up slightly shift wrt to their nominal values, as well as that there is a correction necessary to make the wavelets 'admissable', i.e. to allow an inverse transform to be defined. In the end this correction just makes the wavelet mean-free. (Unfortunately just subtracting the mean after wavelet creation won't do as the wavelet then doesn't taper out to zero anymore.) In some notation (see attached book chapter) the wavelet with correction is written in rescaled and shifted time t -> (t-b)/a as: Psi((t-b)/a) =sqrt(2) exp(-(t-b)^2 / alpha^2*a^2) [exp(i*pi*(t-b)/a) - exp(-pi^2 alpha^2 /4) ] The last exponential that is subtracted from the inner complex exponential under the taper is the correction I'm talking about. To cut a long story short, I had some difficulties matching the Fieldtrip variables (st,sf,...) with the stuff above. So far, I rewrote the code like this (would clean it up before submitting): % creating the wavelet by creating a sine and a cosine with the right % phases at each sample time (ind) and multiplying by the taper carrier = complex(cos(ind),sin(ind)); correction = complex (ones(ind,1).*exp(-pi^2* X^2/2), zeros(ind,1)); % what should "X" be here (st?) carrier_corrected = carrier - correction; wavelet_nonzero = tap.* carrier; % padding (taking the wavelet apart again for this purpose) wavelet = complex(vertcat(prezer,real(wavelet_nonzero),pstzer), vertcat(prezer,imag(wavelet_nonzero),pstzer)); wltspctrm{ifreqoi} = complex(zeros(1,endnsample)); wltspctrm{ifreqoi} = fft(wavelet,[],1)'; But I am unsure about what the "X" in the second line of code should be. In the original formula it is indepedent of scaling, but then the integration runs from -inf to inf, whereas here we're dealing with a discrete transform. So I wonder whether X should be "st" actually. Maybe you could put me in direct contact with the person who wrote the code? From the line $Id: ft_specest_wavelet.m 8368 2013-08-01 13:59:19Z vlalit $ it looked like Vladimir had something to do with it, but he didn't... All the best, Michael </p>

Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2015-01-08 09:10:12 +0100

I moved the discussion to bugzilla to keep track of its resolution.