-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
Retrospective visualization of all plots for debugging purposes (“tapas_physio_review”) #4
Comments
PurposeIn PhysIO, several levels of visual debugging are offered to check different preprocessing steps of the peripheral recordings, as well as model outputs. In an interactive run, these plots are generated successively as Matlab Figures where you can zoom in, inspect results etc. However, a use case that becomes more and more relevant is running PhysIO remotely (e.g., on a high-performance cluster) for a multitude of subjects. To perform effective quality control, one has to inspect the output (debugging) figures retrospectively. The goal of this issue is to provide a comprehensive MethodsThe main goal here is to separate data manipulation from visualization steps. This will require identification of all local functions that plot figures in PhysIO, and also the required auxilary data to be saved for a retrospective re-creation of the plots A rudimentary version of |
This issue is being dealt with in this branch I have updated tapas_physio_review() with a function to retrospectively create Figure 2 (Preproc Peak detection) |
@mrikasper Assuming that I save, as discussed, the he variables that I need for plotting in review. That means that I need to carry them from the location where they are used for plotting while the toolbox is running, up to main_create_regressors, where the physio structure is assembled. How do I do that? Can I just create a subfield in verbose, for example verbose.review? I tried that but a lot of things are done to the verbose structure throughout the execution of the toolbox, and I fear that it might get overwritten. |
It's not clear a priori what's the best place. Yes, This is clear and sustainable in terms of development, because the function definition is unaltered (input/output variables only contains Alternatively, you have a You can also mix the two variants by only putting variables in I have to sleep over it, right now I would prefer the last variant, but let me know your thoughts and questions. |
Hi Lars, I have actually now added a physio.verbose.review matrix and it works for the peak detection function. I have also thought about it and I think this is the cleaner and safer option, nobody will ever temper with that field and it allows to store a snapshot of the variables as they are when printing. |
Could you give some more details or link the code here what you mean by matrix? A structure variable? |
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: