faster-eeg-list — Mailing list for FASTER, for discussing of the software and announcing updates

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] Contaminated Channel Detection - Identifying removed channels

[<bri...@nc...>]

We see the same thing - if the electrode gets any pre-processing like re-referencing, filtering, and/or baseline correction, it will probably look like good EEG data.  This flat line channel becomes a negative cms/drl signal, so it looks like perfectly reasonable EEG data.  We run a high-offset check before any pre-processing of the raw data to identify these sites in an automated way and force them to be interpolate in the first faster step.
 
Brian
 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Richard Macatee" <ma...@ps...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:38am
To: fas...@li...
Subject: [Faster-eeg-list] Contaminated Channel Detection - Identifying removed channels



Hello,
   Occasionally, our lab has to pop out a particular electrode that is causing problems with getting stable impedance readings for the rest of the electrodes on the cap.  I assumed FASTER's contaminated channel detection algorithm would automatically identify these channels given that their values would have very little variance and poorly correlate with surrounding channels.  However, I've noticed for multiple subjects FASTER will not identify these electrodes as dead despite the raw values being abnormally constant (e.g., -258 +/- 4 microvolts throughout the duration of recording) and poorly correlated with surrounding electrodes - in order to interpolate these electrodes, I have to enter them in the 'known bad channels' field.  Any idea why the algorithm isn't identifying these removed electrodes as contaminated?
Thanks everyone!
-Ricky

[Faster-eeg-list] Contaminated Channel Detection - Identifying removed channels

[Richard M. <ma...@ps...>]

Hello,

   Occasionally, our lab has to pop out a particular electrode that is
causing problems with getting stable impedance readings for the rest of the
electrodes on the cap.  I assumed FASTER's contaminated channel detection
algorithm would automatically identify these channels given that their
values would have very little variance and poorly correlate with
surrounding channels.  However, I've noticed for multiple subjects FASTER
will not identify these electrodes as dead despite the raw values being
abnormally constant (e.g., -258 +/- 4 microvolts throughout the duration of
recording) and poorly correlated with surrounding electrodes - in order to
interpolate these electrodes, I have to enter them in the 'known bad
channels' field.  Any idea why the algorithm isn't identifying these
removed electrodes as contaminated?

Thanks everyone!

-Ricky

[Faster-eeg-list] pwelch for component_properties

[Brian R. <bri...@nc...>]

Hi All,

In running faster routines on different systems, I realized that I am 
getting different results from component_properties.m.  The difference 
is only in the power band/frequency slope criteria (the second column of 
matrix returned by component_properties.m)

  - this is due to in one case, component_properties calls 
../eeglab11_0_5_4b/functions/octavefunc/signal/pwelch.m while in another 
it calls a built in matlab pwelch function (in the signal processing 
toolbox).  Unfortunately, values returned (for one test case at least) 
by these two versions are similar (r = .77) but definitely not 
identical.  In one test case, different components are marked for 
rejection based on changes in these component property values.  Was one 
version of pwelch intended?  If so, which one?

thanks,
Brian

-- 
San Francisco VA Medical Center 116D
4150 Clement St. Bld 8 Rm9B#29
San Francisco CA 94121

[Faster-eeg-list] Dll

[slobodan J. <fen...@ya...>]

Hi!
Does exist some library(dll) for artefacting eeg for .net development.
Best,
Dr Slobodan Jovanovicsilencevision.com

[Faster-eeg-list] EEGLAB error in function pop_epoc() at line 193

[Heather H. <hh...@gm...>]

Hello,

I am having issues with extracting epochs. All the event files are
uploaded and everything works until I try and extract epochs.

I receive the following error:

pop_epoch() at line 193:
Index exceeds matrix dimensions.


Warm regards,

Heather

[Faster-eeg-list] Error message:Band-edge frequency must be positive?

[C V. <esp...@ho...>]

Hi there,

I am new to this area. When I used FASTER to analyze my data, the data was not epoched successfully. The error message is "Band-edge frequency must be positive". I checked all the parameters related to band frequency but all of them are positive. Does anyone know what my mistake would be?  Thanks for helping.

Vicky
  		 	   		   		 	   		  

[Faster-eeg-list] channel_properties.m reference electrode argument

[Brian R. <bri...@nc...>]

Hi All,

We've been using FASTER to separately analyze biosemi .bdf and neuroscan 
.cnt data.  In the latest version of the code, the channel_properties.m 
function contains the following lines (31-35):
---
if ~isempty(ref_chan) && length(ref_chan)==1
     pol_dist=distancematrix(EEG,eeg_chans);
     [s_pol_dist dist_inds] = sort(pol_dist(ref_chan,eeg_chans));
     [s_inds idist_inds] = sort(dist_inds);
end
---

In an earlier version, these lines did not contain the if statement (31-33):
---
pol_dist=distancematrix(EEG);
[s_pol_dist dist_inds] = sort(pol_dist(ref_chan,eeg_chans));
[s_inds idist_inds] = sort(dist_inds);
---

Both versions subsequently contain similar code to calculate the 
properties, for example:
---
% 3 Variance of the channels
vars = var(EEG.data(eeg_chans,:)');
vars(~isfinite(vars))=mean(vars(isfinite(vars)));
% Quadratic correction for distance from reference electrode

if (~isempty(ref_chan) && length(ref_chan)==1)
     p = polyfit(s_pol_dist,vars(dist_inds),2);
     fitcurve = polyval(p,s_pol_dist);
     corrected = vars - fitcurve(idist_inds);

     list_properties(:,measure) = corrected;
else
     list_properties(:,measure) = vars;
end
measure = measure + 1;
---

What's odd is that in the later version, the only way it can work is if 
you feed it a single reference channel in the ref_chan argument. If this 
is by design, why are there else statements in the property 
calculations?  For example, dist_inds won't exist if you have two 
reference electrodes (like averaged mastoids or earlobes) and the 
function will error out.  In earlier versions, the else statements would 
be accessed when the ref channel was not defined or contained two or 
more electrodes.  In the case of neuroscan data, they are recorded with 
respect to a reference electrode that doesn't exist in the .cnt file or 
EEG structure unless you create it. So, we would pass channel_properties 
anempty ref_chan argument.  Is that wrong? What are the implications of 
using one version vs the other?  I assume the old version run with empty 
ref_chan argument would not do the quadratic correction mentioned in the 
comments.  Is that a major problem?

thanks,
Brian

-- 
San Francisco VA Medical Center 116D
4150 Clement St. Bld 8 Rm9B#29
San Francisco CA 94121
phone: (415) 221-4810x4335
fax: (415) 750-6622

[Faster-eeg-list] missing function?

[Daniele M. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi again,

if I check the option "Epoch interpolation" then I have an error, saying
that I miss this fucntion

single_epoch_channel_properties

and indeed I don't find it anywhere

thanks

d.

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] marked epoching

[Hugh N. <no...@tc...>]

Hi Daniele,
Text-based markers require a special input format – {'Markers 1', 'Marker
2', 'Marker 3', 'etc'}. The curly brackets and quotation marks are
necessary for this to work properly. There is some more information on this
in the manual if you are interested.
Thanks,
Hugh


On 26 February 2013 14:17, Daniele Marinazzo <dan...@gm...>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> sorry to bother you again, but given your fast and efficient feedback
> everything is getting sorted out very well, so I have another question:
>
> when I run FASTER with unmarked epoching, everything is fien, and the
> resulting dataset is an epoched one.
>
> On the other hand, if I run it with marked epoching, it does not take into
> account this information, and the output dataset is a continuous one.
>
> what I indicate as the marker is its name (the same way I would do in
> EEGLAB when selecting an epoch). is this the correct way? any idea of why
> this could not work?
>
> thanks again
>
> d.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> _______________________________________________
> Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> Fas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
>
>


-- 
Hugh Nolan,
Postdoctoral Researcher,
TILDA Institute,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2

Tel: +353861297722

[Faster-eeg-list] marked epoching

[Daniele M. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi,

sorry to bother you again, but given your fast and efficient feedback
everything is getting sorted out very well, so I have another question:

when I run FASTER with unmarked epoching, everything is fien, and the
resulting dataset is an epoched one.

On the other hand, if I run it with marked epoching, it does not take into
account this information, and the output dataset is a continuous one.

what I indicate as the marker is its name (the same way I would do in
EEGLAB when selecting an epoch). is this the correct way? any idea of why
this could not work?

thanks again

d.

[Faster-eeg-list] faster run on multiple open datasets

[Daniele M. <dan...@gm...>]

and yet another thing..if I run FASTER with several datasets open, it
apparently manages to run only on the last one, for the others it reports


Error - Error using fprintf
Invalid file identifier.  Use fopen to generate a valid file identifier..
******************
* File 004 / 394 *
******************

Error - Error using fprintf
Invalid file identifier.  Use fopen to generate a valid file identifier..
******************
* File 005 / 394 *
******************

Error - Error using fprintf
Invalid file identifier.  Use fopen to generate a valid file identifier..


and so on..

thanks

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] running from saved job

[Hugh N. <no...@tc...>]

Hi Daniele,
Something like this should work (haven't checked!):

L=load('C:\\your_job_file');
FASTER(L.option_wrapper);


On 25 February 2013 17:23, Daniele Marinazzo <dan...@gm...>wrote:

> Also, I was wondering if there is a way of running FASTER with a script,
> but directly from a saved job (instead of calling the single *_properties
> and the min_z)
>
> thanks
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> _______________________________________________
> Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> Fas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
>
>


-- 
Hugh Nolan,
Postdoctoral Researcher,
TILDA Institute,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2

Tel: +353861297722

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] revert processed data to continuous dataset

[Hugh N. <no...@tc...>]

Hi Daniele
This was discussed recently on the EEGLAB archive in fact:

http://sccn.ucsd.edu/pipermail/eeglablist/2013/006134.html

Thanks,
Hugh

On 25 February 2013 16:39, Robert Whelan <whe...@gm...> wrote:

> Hi -- Daniele. I'm not sure I understand your question 100%.
>
> Do you mean that you have continuous data? In that case, if you don't
> specify markers then FASTER will leave the data as continuous,
>
> All the best,
> Rob
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Daniele Marinazzo
> <dan...@gm...> wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > if I use FASTER with unmarked epochs, is then possible to revert all the
> > processed data to a continuous dataset?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > daniele
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> > _______________________________________________
> > Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> > Fas...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
> >
>
>


-- 
Hugh Nolan,
Postdoctoral Researcher,
TILDA Institute,
Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin 2

Tel: +353861297722

[Faster-eeg-list] running from saved job

[Daniele M. <dan...@gm...>]

Also, I was wondering if there is a way of running FASTER with a script,
but directly from a saved job (instead of calling the single *_properties
and the min_z)

thanks

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] avoiding average reference

[Daniele M. <dan...@gm...>]

thanks a lot rob

my reason against average reference is that when doing connectivity
analyses based on model prediction, if the target channel already contains
by construction info from the other channels then I will introduce
artificial influences.

I see your point, I will try to recover the original reference from the
recordings.

also, I compared the results obtained with FASTER with the manual ICA-based
rejection with the "good" reference, and they look very much the same, so I
could possibly try like that




On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Robert Whelan <whe...@gm...> wrote:

> Hi Daniele,
>
> It's not a good idea to skip the average reference step -- this is
> because the pattern of artifacts will somewhat become a function of
> the reference channel. This is why FASTER uses the average for
> artifact rejection -- and EEGLAB will force a re-reference to the
> average anyway for the ICA step.
>
> However, you can always re-reference to any electrode(s) in EEGLAB
> once pre-processing is over. So, my advice would be to let the
> artifact rejection run with the average reference and then use EEGLAB
> to re-reference to your desired reference. Or do you have a strong
> motivation for not using the average ref?
>
> All the best,
> Rob
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Daniele Marinazzo
> <dan...@gm...> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to skip the averaged reference step, but I don't have the
> > original reference channel in my dataset. so, if possible, I would like
> to
> > completely skip the reference part, leaving the original reference of the
> > input dataset. is it possible to do this?
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > daniele
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> > _______________________________________________
> > Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> > Fas...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
> >
>

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] avoiding average reference

[Robert W. <whe...@gm...>]

Hi Daniele,

It's not a good idea to skip the average reference step -- this is
because the pattern of artifacts will somewhat become a function of
the reference channel. This is why FASTER uses the average for
artifact rejection -- and EEGLAB will force a re-reference to the
average anyway for the ICA step.

However, you can always re-reference to any electrode(s) in EEGLAB
once pre-processing is over. So, my advice would be to let the
artifact rejection run with the average reference and then use EEGLAB
to re-reference to your desired reference. Or do you have a strong
motivation for not using the average ref?

All the best,
Rob

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Daniele Marinazzo
<dan...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to skip the averaged reference step, but I don't have the
> original reference channel in my dataset. so, if possible, I would like to
> completely skip the reference part, leaving the original reference of the
> input dataset. is it possible to do this?
>
> thanks
>
> daniele
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> _______________________________________________
> Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> Fas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
>

[Faster-eeg-list] revert processed data to continuous dataset

[Daniele M. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi again,

if I use FASTER with unmarked epochs, is then possible to revert all the
processed data to a continuous dataset?

thanks

daniele

[Faster-eeg-list] avoiding average reference

[Daniele M. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi,

I would like to skip the averaged reference step, but I don't have the
original reference channel in my dataset. so, if possible, I would like to
completely skip the reference part, leaving the original reference of the
input dataset. is it possible to do this?

thanks

daniele

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] new FASTER user.. missing something :)

[Robert W. <whe...@gm...>]

Hi Andrew,

A first guess is that the markers are not getting picked up, hence no
epoching, so I would check that initially. Has an error file been produced
also,
errors.mat? If so, can you send it to me.

Cheers,
Rob
On Oct 23, 2012 9:10 PM, "andrew hill" <an...@sa...> wrote:

> hi folks,
>
> i'm trying out FASTER for the first time - set up a run against BDF files
> (on a Mac, using MATLAB R2010a) and configured all of the Options after
> launching FASTER_GUI..
>
> when i run the Job, it seems to perform the Filter step (importing BDF
> files, re-ref to 1 electrode, saving as .set) and perhaps the Channel
> interpolation.  I don't see any activities in the console that suggest
> interpolation, but I get "intermediate" files in the directories named like
> 1_pre_filt_(filename) and 2_pre_interp_(filename) before (filename).set and
> (filename).log are saved.
>
> But that's it.. I dont get Epoching, ICA, Epoch Interpolation, or Grand
> Average running.. even though i've configured Options for those setps.
>
> Is there some other step I need to configure?  I assumed based on the GUI
> and the Manual that FASTER just runs through the Option items in order, but
> perhaps I'm confused.
>
> I'm also getting a "subscripted dimensions mismatch" error during each
> save step.. but figured that's probably not a bit deal.. is it?  :)
>
> Thanks for any suggestions - a .log file for one of these files is below.
>
> Andrew
>
> -------
>
> 22/Oct/2012 23:17:45
> 0.00 - Opened log file.
> 19.39 - Imported and converted file
> /Users/andrew/Documents/Research/DATA/FASTER_input/140_BFB_6.bdf.
> 20.29 - Loaded channel locations file from
> /Users/andrew/Documents/MATLAB/eeglab11_0_4_3b/functions/resources/Standard-10-5-Cap385.sfp.
> 15.24 - Highpass filter: 1.000Hz, transition band: 0.50, order: 1856.
> 3.32 - Lowpass filter: 95.000Hz, transition band: 2.50, order: 284.
> 7.87 - Notch filter: 58.500 to 61.500Hz, transition band: 1.00, order: 912.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct
> _______________________________________________
> Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> Fas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
>

[Faster-eeg-list] new FASTER user.. missing something :)

[andrew h. <an...@sa...>]

hi folks,

i'm trying out FASTER for the first time - set up a run against BDF files (on a Mac, using MATLAB R2010a) and configured all of the Options after launching FASTER_GUI..

when i run the Job, it seems to perform the Filter step (importing BDF files, re-ref to 1 electrode, saving as .set) and perhaps the Channel interpolation.  I don't see any activities in the console that suggest interpolation, but I get "intermediate" files in the directories named like 1_pre_filt_(filename) and 2_pre_interp_(filename) before (filename).set and (filename).log are saved.

But that's it.. I dont get Epoching, ICA, Epoch Interpolation, or Grand Average running.. even though i've configured Options for those setps.

Is there some other step I need to configure?  I assumed based on the GUI and the Manual that FASTER just runs through the Option items in order, but perhaps I'm confused.

I'm also getting a "subscripted dimensions mismatch" error during each save step.. but figured that's probably not a bit deal.. is it?  :)

Thanks for any suggestions - a .log file for one of these files is below.

Andrew

-------

22/Oct/2012 23:17:45
0.00 - Opened log file.
19.39 - Imported and converted file /Users/andrew/Documents/Research/DATA/FASTER_input/140_BFB_6.bdf.
20.29 - Loaded channel locations file from /Users/andrew/Documents/MATLAB/eeglab11_0_4_3b/functions/resources/Standard-10-5-Cap385.sfp.
15.24 - Highpass filter: 1.000Hz, transition band: 0.50, order: 1856.
3.32 - Lowpass filter: 95.000Hz, transition band: 2.50, order: 284.
7.87 - Notch filter: 58.500 to 61.500Hz, transition band: 1.00, order: 912.

[Faster-eeg-list] Fix for compatibility issue with recent version of EEGLAB

[Robert W. <whe...@gm...>]

Dear List,

Recent releases of EEGLAB (11.0.2.1b, and possibly others) have
changed code related to the channel location files, resulting in the
following error when running FASTER: "Subscripted assignment dimension
mismatch".

This issue has been fixed in the latest version of FASTER, available
on SourceForge: https://sourceforge.net/projects/faster/

If you upgrade to the new EEGLAB you will need to upgrade to the
latest version of FASTER. Note that the new version of FASTER is
backwards compatible with older versions of EEGLAB.

All the best,
Rob

[Faster-eeg-list] FASTER & Matlab 2012

[Robert W. <whe...@gm...>]

Dear list,

FASTER has recently been tweaked on
https://sourceforge.net/projects/faster/to accommodate changes in
Matlab 2012.

We would be grateful to anyone who reports any features in Matlab 2012 that
cause problems in FASTER.

Best Regards,

Rob and Hugh

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] Rereferencing Error when Using FASTER

[Hugh N. <no...@tc...>]

Hi Omoniyi,
this error probably occurs when you have not selected the reference channel
in the "Channels for ICA" section of the ICA options. If you have done this,
could you send your job file and the FASTER_erorrs.mat file generated to me
and I will take a look at it?
Thanks,
Hugh

On 20 October 2011 06:13, Omoniyi Segun <omo...@ya...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this great tool.
>
> I am getting the error below when using FASTER to process EEG data from a
> neuroscan system.
>
> Error: some channels not used for ICA decomposition are used for
> re-referencing
>
>
> I have set both processing  and output reference to FCZ. I find that the
> channel FC3 immediately left of the reference channel has no signal on it
> after processing (Signal was present before processing)
>
> Have you seen similar issues when using the plugin and also is there a way
> i can resolve this .
>
> Thanks
>
> Omoniyi Segun
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the
> demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly.
> Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn
> about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> Fas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
>
>


-- 
Hugh Nolan,
Trinity Centre for Bioengineering,
Printing House,
Trinity College Dublin.

Tel: +353861297722

Re: [Faster-eeg-list] FASTER on continuous data

[Hugh N. <no...@tc...>]

Hi Brian,
applying FASTER to continuous data is certainly possible - if you don't
select any epoching options, the  ICA and later steps will be applied to the
continuous data. As you say, there will be increased computation time and
the possibility of bad blocks of data, which can bias the ICA with a lot of
ICs relating to these bad blocks, which mucks up the statistics a bit. The
"unmarkered epoching" option in the epoching section of the GUI was
introduced to do exactly as you suggested, split the data into e.g. 1s
epochs. This allows the use of the epoch rejection tool for removing
sections of data with lots of contamination, allowing the ICA a better
chance of a sensible decomposition.
Hope that helps a bit, any further questions  don't hesitate to ask,
Thanks for your interest,
Hugh

On 19 October 2011 23:18, Brian Roach <bri...@nc...> wrote:

> **
> Hello,
>
> I'm interested in potentially applying steps from the FASTER routine to
> continuous EEG data (like resting state data).  The first step if applied to
> continuous data, and then I am wondering if skipping step 2 but still
> applying step 3 would work.  Specifically, how important would it be to have
> epochs vs continuous data passed to ICA?  Since EEGlab's ICA is spatial and
> the outlier IC detection steps examine spatial, spectral, and timecourse
> components of ICs without respect to trials, I think this would work OK.
> However, has anyone tried it?  Are there potential issues with the EOG
> correlations that I should consider?  I appreciate that a large block of
> continuous data means more input to ICA and potentially greater computation
> time, but that is OK with me as long as it seems like a valid approach.
> Without applying steps 2 and 4, there are potentially bad blocks of data
> that wouldn't be rejected.  Perhaps a better alternative is to cut
> continuous data into 1s "epochs" for step 4.  If I used that same approach
> and applied step 2, I would probably cut out chunks of the continuous EEG.
>
> If anyone has tested anything like this and has advice, I would appreciate
> it!
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the
> demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly.
> Take a complimentary Learning@Ciosco Self-Assessment and learn
> about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Faster-eeg-list mailing list
> Fas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faster-eeg-list
>
>


-- 
Hugh Nolan,
Trinity Centre for Bioengineering,
Printing House,
Trinity College Dublin.

Tel: +353861297722

[Faster-eeg-list] Rereferencing Error when Using FASTER

[Omoniyi S. <omo...@ya...>]

Hi,

Thanks for this great tool.

I am getting the error below when using FASTER to process EEG data from a neuroscan system.


Error: some channels not used for ICA decomposition are used for re-referencing



I have set both processing  and output reference to FCZ. I find that the channel FC3 immediately left of the reference channel has no signal on it after processing (Signal was present before processing) 

Have you seen similar issues when using the plugin and also is there a way i can resolve this .

Thanks

Omoniyi Segun