open-discussion
open-discussion > RE: Shared NIRS Data Format - SNIRF
Jul 31, 2013 08:07 PM | David Boas
RE: Shared NIRS Data Format - SNIRF
Could detectorType, sourceType,
detectorModule and sourceModule be added as optional fields in
SD?
But then we need to introduce the list of possible source types and detector types. At present you only provide the example of a short-separation source or detector. But why is that any different than a regular measurement? For analysis purposes, in Homer2, we identify short separation measurements based on the source detector separation which we calculate form the optode positions, rather than relying on a prior specification of what is a short separation measurement. If you feel strongly about adding detType or srcType, perhaps we can discuss it further.
as for the module information, it seems that this information could be conveyed in the srcLabel and detLabel fields that we have added to SD as an optional field. I guess that srcType and detType could also be encoded in the srcLabel and detLabel. That way the encoding specification is left to the individual and doesn't need to be standardized since it is not clear that it is of general utility. How does that sound?
David Boas
Originally posted by Mathieu Coursolle:
But then we need to introduce the list of possible source types and detector types. At present you only provide the example of a short-separation source or detector. But why is that any different than a regular measurement? For analysis purposes, in Homer2, we identify short separation measurements based on the source detector separation which we calculate form the optode positions, rather than relying on a prior specification of what is a short separation measurement. If you feel strongly about adding detType or srcType, perhaps we can discuss it further.
as for the module information, it seems that this information could be conveyed in the srcLabel and detLabel fields that we have added to SD as an optional field. I guess that srcType and detType could also be encoded in the srcLabel and detLabel. That way the encoding specification is left to the individual and doesn't need to be standardized since it is not clear that it is of general utility. How does that sound?
David Boas
Originally posted by Mathieu Coursolle:
Hi,
Another comment/suggestion on the file format...
Our system has 'standard' detectors, and 'proximity' detectors. The proximity detectors are meant to be use to record the surface physiology with short-separation measurements.
The current definition of 'ml' allows to define a measurement using its source/wavelength index, and its detector index.
How could we specify here if the detector index refers to the ith detector, or the ith proximity detector? Add a 'detectorType'?
If I could bring up another issue...
Our system also uses a modular concept, where the full system is the combination of multiple smaller 8-channel modules.
This could also apply to systems that could be combined (e.g. using 2 system to add more measurements).
What if I want to pair a detector from a module/system, to the detector of another module/system?
In its most complex form, I would see 'ml' as
- detector module index
- detector type
- detector index
- source module index
- source index
- wavelength index
I know this would add complexity, but I am trying to make sure that no information is lost if this data format is used for export.
Thank you,
Mathieu
Another comment/suggestion on the file format...
Our system has 'standard' detectors, and 'proximity' detectors. The proximity detectors are meant to be use to record the surface physiology with short-separation measurements.
The current definition of 'ml' allows to define a measurement using its source/wavelength index, and its detector index.
How could we specify here if the detector index refers to the ith detector, or the ith proximity detector? Add a 'detectorType'?
If I could bring up another issue...
Our system also uses a modular concept, where the full system is the combination of multiple smaller 8-channel modules.
This could also apply to systems that could be combined (e.g. using 2 system to add more measurements).
What if I want to pair a detector from a module/system, to the detector of another module/system?
In its most complex form, I would see 'ml' as
- detector module index
- detector type
- detector index
- source module index
- source index
- wavelength index
I know this would add complexity, but I am trying to make sure that no information is lost if this data format is used for export.
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 | |