You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Here a thread to discuss how to integrate multi segment in ephyviewer.
Some user have have multi segment dataset.
The way it is built is that one window = one segment.
Some times it is not very convinient to open and close for each segment.
If we want all segment in one window, we can have several apporach:
make source "aggregator", if t_start are correctly distributed along time without overlap between segment
we could have a source that would aggrgate several other sources.
we could have explicit segment swap in he main window (like a combo box that would switch all viewer to the next segment).
Both approach represent some work. This is why I open the discussion.
I want to make sure I understand Approach 1. Is your suggestion that the "aggregator" could concatenate sources if t_start(n) > t_stop(n-1) for all n segments?
For example, if segment 2's t_start is later than segment 1's t_stop, and if their AnalogSignals are completely "congruent" (e.g., same numbers of AnalogSignals with same names and same number of channels each), then segment 2's AnalogSignals could be appended to segment 1's.
Is it the case that Neo guarantees that Segments within a Block are all congruent? If not, ephyviewer could need to check.
Approach 2 seems like the lower hanging fruit, and it should be able to handle the general case where the t_starts are not correctly distributed, or when sources are not congruent across segments.
Here a thread to discuss how to integrate multi segment in ephyviewer.
Some user have have multi segment dataset.
The way it is built is that one window = one segment.
Some times it is not very convinient to open and close for each segment.
If we want all segment in one window, we can have several apporach:
we could have a source that would aggrgate several other sources.
Both approach represent some work. This is why I open the discussion.
Jeffrey : what do you think ?
@jpgill86
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: