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
Since this information (reference, ground electrode, amplifier and cap manufacturer) should ideally always be written for EEG, it would be great to make this easier for users.
Describe your solution
Add a new method BIDSPath.update_eeg_metadata() to conveniently add this information:
Any other ideas on how we could make the process easier for users then? I think we're making it too hard for users to produce datasets with "complete" metadata
I think that if we don't want to add a convenience function to the code base (in order to avoid overfitting for EEG), perhaps we can add an example on how to do it.
Describe the problem
Working with EEG data, I find myself writing the following to ensure more complete metadata:
Since this information (reference, ground electrode, amplifier and cap manufacturer) should ideally always be written for EEG, it would be great to make this easier for users.
Describe your solution
Add a new method
BIDSPath.update_eeg_metadata()
to conveniently add this information:Describe possible alternatives
Add this functional to
write_raw_bids()
, but I don't think we'll want to have so many new parameters.Additional context
This is related to #713
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: