Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
[deleted comment]
Original comment by JBWagenaar
on 21 Mar 2012 at 6:20
Attachments:
sorry for the bunch of incorrect figures... Trying to get this to work... It
seems that maybe the values returned to Matlab are correct. Can you double
check this?
Original comment by JBWagenaar
on 21 Mar 2012 at 6:26
Attachments:
After the QA update of this morning, MATLAB does receive filtered data.
However, the filtered data does not look the same in the web portal viewer and
the matlab figure... I suspect that the Matlab data is correct, but will check
with a local copy of the raw EEG data.
Original comment by JBWagenaar
on 21 Mar 2012 at 6:57
Non-obvious aspect of an EEG viewer (also as per Matt): we always do a lowpass
filter that is at no higher than 1/2 the *screen resolution* in pixels. This
prevents aliasing on the screen.
But basically if you specify a higher-pass filter in the portal it will only
matter if you zoom in to a point where there are enough samples on the screen.
Note that otherwise the downsampling used in the viewer is the same exact code
as what's used in the web services.
Original comment by zack.i...@gmail.com
on 21 Mar 2012 at 8:49
I don't think the web portal viewer behavior can be explained by downsampling
and an additional filter. It looks more like it upsampled the downsampled
filtered signal and padded it with zeros, or something.
The matlab figure is approximately the same number of pixels so in theory, they
should be fairly similar. (click on screenshots to see original size).
Original comment by JBWagenaar
on 21 Mar 2012 at 9:01
I attached the following figures: All figures are from patient034, channel 2,
4th order bandpass filter 100-500Hz. First second of data
1) View in EEG portal viewer
2) Get data from server using analysis: set sampling rate to 1000Hz, same
filter settings as above
3) Get data from server using analysis: set sampling rate to 2713Hz, same
filter settings as above
4) Use FILTFILT in MATLAB on raw data file with sampling rate of 2713HZ, same
filter settings as above
Now, aside from initial conditions, the different figures look completely
different...
Original comment by JBWagenaar
on 21 Mar 2012 at 9:49
Attachments:
Original comment by samd.p...@gmail.com
on 23 Mar 2012 at 4:24
Original comment by zack.i...@gmail.com
on 16 Apr 2012 at 4:04
Original comment by samd.p...@gmail.com
on 11 May 2012 at 2:32
Changed filters to use 1/5 sample rate as opposed to Nyquist frequency.
Original comment by zack.i...@gmail.com
on 11 May 2012 at 5:49
Changed frequency; need some testing to see if it improved things.
Original comment by zack.i...@gmail.com
on 15 May 2012 at 8:45
Original comment by john.fro...@gmail.com
on 17 May 2012 at 10:02
Original comment by JBWagenaar
on 24 May 2012 at 6:06
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
JBWagenaar
on 21 Mar 2012 at 4:14Attachments: