[Mne_analysis] mne_ex_read_write_raw
Elisabeth Fonteneau
ef309 at cam.ac.uk
Mon Jan 7 13:40:00 EST 2013
Hello again,
Thanks Alex for your answer
I did check this and the first_samp are the same in both files , also number
of total samples.
I also did a test using an original file and passed it through the
mne_read_write_raw function (without ICA stuff)
And I do have the same behaviour, then I am assuming the problem is not
coming from ICA but more about that mne_read_write function
The file is correctly written but the old event format is not handle
anymore.
Any other ideas?
Best,
Elisabeth
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Gramfort [mailto:gramfort at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
Sent: 07 January 2013 11:00
To: Elisabeth Fonteneau
Cc: mne_analysis at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Mne_analysis] mne_ex_read_write_raw
Dear Elisabeth,
the only thing that comes to my mind is to check the first_samp attribute of
raw
(raw.first_samp) returned by fiff_setup_read_raw.m and check that it's
consistent before and after ICA correction.
HTH
Alex
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Elisabeth Fonteneau <ef309 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Hello MNE users,
>
> I have a question regarding the function mne_ex_read_write_raw.m which
> allows to read and write back a raw fif file.
>
>
>
> We do have raw files that have been acquired in 2008 and at that time
> we exported the events (with mne_browse_raw, v2.6.0). The event file
> was in the old format (time correspond to time starting after the HPI
> -20s). Now if I'm am exporting again the event on the same data with
> the same mne_version
> (2.6.0) , my events will be in the new format (skipping HPI time on
> the first line + 0 0 and now the time correspond to trigger time +
> skipping time). If using the newer version (2.7.3) I do have the same
> thing. My first question is can we not export anymore event file in
> the old format even with an old mne_version(2.6.0)?
>
>
>
> I realise that the format event is not a problem, because
> mne_process_raw could handle both event formats for those files and
> creating an appropriate average (identical whatever the event format is).
>
>
>
> However here is my problem:
>
>
>
> We want to use the command mne_ex_read_write_raw.m (we are removing
> blinks with ICA and write back the raw fiff data). After re-writing
> the data in fiff format, mne_process_raw is not able anymore to handle
> the old event format (it is still detecting which format it is) but
> the average with the old format is wrong. If using the new format event,
the average is correct.
>
>
>
> I am thinking that this function (mne_ex_read_write_raw.m) is missing
> to write back some information (in the header perhaps) that will help
> mne_process_raw (and potentially other mne_command) to handle the
> older format.
>
>
>
> An easy way will be to re-export all our events files (time
> comsuming), but I was wondering if you have another idea?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Elisabeth
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Dr Elisabeth Fonteneau
>
> Neurolex Group
>
> Department of Psychology
>
> University of Cambridge
>
> Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK
>
> Phone: +44 1223 333 548
>
> Email: ef309 at cam.ac.uk
>
> Web: www.neurolex.psychol.cam.ac.uk/directory/ef309 at cam.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mne_analysis mailing list
> Mne_analysis at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/mne_analysis
>
>
> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom
> it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error
> and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the
> Partners Compliance HelpLine at http://www.partners.org/complianceline
> . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but does not contain patient
> information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the
> e-mail.
>
More information about the Mne_analysis
mailing list