[Mne_analysis] The events you get depend on what way you read them in .
CCUSHING1 at mgh.harvard.edu
Fri Apr 8 12:18:47 EDT 2016
It looks like you're just having some events be masked with mne_process_raw. By default, mne_process_raw only shows you zero to non-zero transitions (I believe). Your python event list is showing you all event transitions. If you run mne_process_raw with the --allevents option, the event files should match. The sample numbers where the events occur look to match between your two event files, so you have the same events no matter which way you do it, you're just getting more events listed with one method due to the options you have selected.
From: mne_analysis-bounces at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu [mne_analysis-bounces at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] on behalf of Dan Howarth [d.c.howarth at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:27 AM
To: Discussion and support forum for the users of MNE Software
Subject: [Mne_analysis] The events you get depend on what way you read them in .
Hello, I am really confused here. There are multiple ways to read the events of a fif file and everyway I go it leads to different results. Could someone shed light onto what is happening here?
So I have a file called DataFile_raw.fif
If I do the following:
r = mne.io.Raw('DataFile_raw.fif')
eve = mne.find_events(r, stim_channel='STI101')
Then eve is something like: https://gist.github.com/howarth/523fff7868358ebea714fb9e85209e9b
However, if I just use the mne_processes_raw to make an eve file with the following command:
mne_process_raw --raw DataFile_raw.fif --digtrig STI101 --eventsout DataFile_raw.eve
Then DataFile_raw.eve looks like: https://gist.github.com/howarth/34a65d9294ecbe69492d5f27229829f2
Basically it looks like the larger numbers are removed.
What is happening here?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mne_analysis