Open mslw opened 5 years ago
On an afterthought - instead of using {session}
we can just put the subfolder as part of path if we are not using the session label further down (in the heuristic) -- that would seem more natural. Of course, there would still be hoping that scans won't conflict between those subfolders.
I would rather name all the sessions according to acquisition date. It seems to be in line with bids standard.
It would be valid BIDS (for the purpose of bids-apps at least), but not very intuitive if we were to further use the nifti data (a given study would end up with as many sessions as subjects).
So I would rather try something different. But this idea is definitely worth considering.
For the dysleksja I am tempted to try and create a special case, where session name would be either 32ch or 12ch, based on dicom (sub-)folder name (if controlled in bash) or study_description (if controlled in the heuristic). We could see if it works and try to generalise from there.
The problem
If two sessions for the given subject are dumped together (as is often the case in the dysleksja study), like this:
our heudiconv call will end with a crash:
and there will be no data for QC. This is similar to #1 but this time the sessions came to bite us on a different level.
Potential solution
In such cases, we could try working around it by putting
{session}
in the dicom directory template and running heudiconv for each session separately (unfortunately, the session has to be specified explicitly in such case):However (unless we use the session label in our heuristic) this will again be relying on an assumption that those session use different task names - otherwise we will be overwriting stuff.
Also, in our dicom patterns, the directory after subject seems to be the combination of date and
study_description
, and something like 20190314 - HEAD 32ch_NameOfPI makes a poor session name.