search

INCF / artem-is

https://incf.github.io/artem-is/
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
13 stars 11 forks source link

ERP-specific questions #61

Closed suzyjstyles closed 2 years ago

suzyjstyles commented 2 years ago

One of the outcomes of the SIPS workshop is that folks really like the layout and utility of the apps early sections even if they're not doing ERP. Their suggestion is it would be nice to ensure the template is modular, so separate sections can be used if useful, and additional methods (like time/frequency domain analysis) could have their own modular chunks tabs added later on. I'll make a list of sections that have ERP specific content, so we can think about how to make it more modular.

Study Description Q13 (mentions epochs and ERPs as part of a list - not necessarily a problem, but could be good to make more general)

Pre-processing Q61-67 Epoching Q68-73 Baseline correction

Measurement Q1-74 All ERP-specific

Suggestion:

  1. Shift Epoching and Baseline to Measurement? Or conditional questions for Epoching and Baselining, so they are hidden for people who aren't using those procedures?
  2. Rename Measurement to ERP Measurement, so a different module could be added/subbed in for different kinds of procedures?
asoskic commented 2 years ago

Worth talking about in August, but I am noting down initial thoughts so that I don't forget them:

Firstly, I was not aware that we had that few ERP-specific items and sections! :O

I see adding new modules to this template as an alternative idea to the original plan that this is ARTEM-IS for ERP, and other templates for EEG may follow as separate templates.

When I compare new tabs in the same template vs. separate templates, I like the fact that we have so few ERP-specific sections and the coherency of having everything in one template. On the other hand, I would be reluctant about adding tabs in case showing and hiding parts: (1) makes the template eventually too big and cumbersome to fill in with many unnecessary options to skip and with a bunch of questions that include unnecessary options irrelevant to a given type of EEG study, or (2) makes the template too complex, given that different types of EEG differ to different extent from each other (e.g., time-frequency and ERP probably have more steps in common with each other than with analysis of EEG bands). In that scenario, I would vote for sticking to the plan about separate templates, with consistent naming of identical tabs and items accross all templates.

p.s. In the current version of the web-app, Epoching and Baseline are already optional and one can say No when asked whether they implemented these steps, so that seems to be sorted out. (Another similar set of items to Baseline and Epoching to consider is Artifacts- it includes procedures applied to trials, but they are also optional.) => It seems that Q13 in Study description (which can be expanded to include new types of data as we add new types of EEG studies) and Measurement are the only ERP-specific sections. :O :O :O By the way, I would be against shifting any of these three to Measurement because they do not belong there.

asoskic commented 2 years ago

We had to make a decision before finalizing V1, and it made more sense to stick to the original plan because it doesn't endanger modularity longterm, as described above.