open-discussion
open-discussion > RE: Shared NIRS Data Format - SNIRF
Jul 31, 2013 08:07 PM | David Boas
RE: Shared NIRS Data Format - SNIRF
This is a good point. And this is easily resolved by adding
optional fields to SD called SrcLabels and DetLabels.
I have added this to the spec at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EKEM...
One concern I have is that this is a string array which might cause some annoyances unless we specify the length of the string rather than having it be open ended. Is it okay to set the length of the string as a max of 10 characters?
If anyone sees a major issue with the addition of these optional fields or anything else, please let me know. Note that this SNIRF spec is not yet finalized, but it would be good to finalize it soon.
Thanks,
David
Originally posted by Mathieu Coursolle:
I have added this to the spec at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EKEM...
One concern I have is that this is a string array which might cause some annoyances unless we specify the length of the string rather than having it be open ended. Is it okay to set the length of the string as a max of 10 characters?
If anyone sees a major issue with the addition of these optional fields or anything else, please let me know. Note that this SNIRF spec is not yet finalized, but it would be good to finalize it soon.
Thanks,
David
Originally posted by Mathieu Coursolle:
Hi,
I'd like to bring up another comment on the proposed snirf format (if not too late...).
In the description of the "ml" structure, there is a note specifying that "source indices generally refer to the optode naming (probe positions)".
What if the optode naming is different from the source/detector indices? It is usually the case with our system.
I guess a potential solution would be to add optional fields to SD? We could then have something like "SrcLabels" and "DetLabels" fields, which could indicate the name/label of the optode to be used.
I think this would avoid a lot of confusion when reviewing the data. As an example, the first optode used could be S4 on the device, not S1.
Thank you,
Mathieu
I'd like to bring up another comment on the proposed snirf format (if not too late...).
In the description of the "ml" structure, there is a note specifying that "source indices generally refer to the optode naming (probe positions)".
What if the optode naming is different from the source/detector indices? It is usually the case with our system.
I guess a potential solution would be to add optional fields to SD? We could then have something like "SrcLabels" and "DetLabels" fields, which could indicate the name/label of the optode to be used.
I think this would avoid a lot of confusion when reviewing the data. As an example, the first optode used could be S4 on the device, not S1.
Thank you,
Mathieu
Threaded View
| Title | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| David Boas | Oct 19, 2012 | |
| David Boas | Aug 1, 2013 | |
| Mathieu Coursolle | Apr 2, 2013 | |
| Mathieu Coursolle | Apr 15, 2013 | |
| David Boas | Jul 31, 2013 | |
| David Boas | Jul 31, 2013 | |
| David Boas | Nov 20, 2012 | |
| Alex Cristia | Nov 20, 2012 | |
| Alex Cristia | Nov 5, 2012 | |
| David Boas | Nov 16, 2012 | |
| Mathieu Coursolle | Nov 16, 2012 | |
| Alessandro Torricelli | Oct 25, 2012 | |
| Blaise Frederick | Oct 26, 2012 | |
| David Boas | Nov 5, 2012 | |
| Alessandro Torricelli | Oct 25, 2012 | |
| Mathieu Coursolle | Oct 22, 2012 | |
| Blaise Frederick | Oct 22, 2012 | |
| David Boas | Nov 5, 2012 | |
| Mathieu Coursolle | Nov 20, 2012 | |