-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Automated event renaming doesn't always do the right thing #936
Comments
@sappelhoff (in case you have a minute to spare :)) It appears that the
IMHO this is the same event listed 3 times, and only once associated with a The https://bids-specification.readthedocs.io/en/stable/04-modality-specific-files/05-task-events.html Now I'm wondering if we should just explicitly skip rows that don't have a proper cc @agramfort |
The The basic problem is that back then, I formatted the BIDS dataset in a "by trial" fashion --> each row in events.tsv corresponds to one event in a trial ... and many columns encode additional stuff that happened during the trial ... but not necessarily at the time of the event corresponding to that row This is bad practice and I should have just recorded all events and organized The current "version" of matchingpennies was created after a long discussion with Kay because we wanted to add HED tags to the dataset. See: bids-standard/bids-examples#191 We then realized the "by trial" versus "by event" issue, and I pushed changes to make the dataset to be more in a "by event" style ... unfortunately I didn't have enough data to reproduce all the details, so that's where the Fast forward: Meanwhile, HED has moved to version 3, and we've all gotten a little smarter along the way, so I have a PR open to "revert" the dataset back to the original "by trial" style ... because it's tidier, and HED should be able to deal with "by trial" event structures as well (it's just less detailed than "by events"). See: bids-standard/bids-examples#265 Unfortunately, that PR has stalled for quite a while now. One last comment: I don't think |
Thanks @sappelhoff! I'll try to make things work better with the current version of the dataset. Don't bother touching it. |
The
n/a
s clearly shoulnd't be there.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: