[FIX] Clarify use of acq and task parameters in EEG, MEG, and iEEG#188
[FIX] Clarify use of acq and task parameters in EEG, MEG, and iEEG#188sappelhoff merged 6 commits intobids-standard:masterfrom
Conversation
choldgraf
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A minor typo in there. I'm a little bit confused about this change, but I'll defer to your judgment. Is the problem that a particular shape of electrodes cannot be task-dependent? (as opposed to session-dependent?)
Also can you confirm that this is only updating the text to adhere to the current BIDS spec, and not changing the spec itself?
Co-Authored-By: sappelhoff <stefan.appelhoff@mailbox.org>
Fair point - I was assuming that electrodes are set up on the participant only once per session, because I never heard of another design. But of course that doesn't mean it does not exist ... what do you say @robertoostenveld ?
Given that iEEG electrodes don't have a task label either (see here), I have the impression that in EEG this task label was erroneously copy pasted. |
|
Just to be clear, those points weren't pushing back on either of those assumptions (they seem reasonable to me), just wanted to clarify them! |
robertoostenveld
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My review aims at the general logic, not at the consistency between this table and the documentation elsewhere.
-
if
acqis optional for MEG/EEG/iEEG, it should also be optional for channels.tsv. Otherwise you could have two recordings that only differ in theacqlabel for which you cannot distinguish the channel details. This might e.g. be the case with clinical iEEG, which sometimes gets "spliced" into different amplifiers. -
taskshould not be required for eeg/ieeg electrodes (it is just like headshape and photo)
Other than that it all looks good.
Agreed, I would be fine with the statement that an EEG "session" corresponds to a single application of electrodes on the subject. That does not cover all cases, but should (at this moment) cover >95%. Gel-based EEG electrodes usually require some cleanup. But an example that is not covered: using dry EEG electrodes, e.g. in a BCI experimental setup, and then reapplying the cap or using another cap. |
The point of this PR is to remove Thus I would argue that
yep, I removed the
I think we can work with these issues when they pop up. |
While @robertoostenveld and I went over #173, we noticed several minor inaccuracies with the entities that recording modalities can have.
This PR mainly targets a consistent and sensible use of the acq parameter, as also discussed in #194 (comment)
Furthermore, one superfluous task label is deleted from EEG electrodes.
In Robert's words: