Skip to content

changes slice_order type from Int to Float #1724

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 9, 2016
Merged

Conversation

miykael
Copy link
Collaborator

@miykael miykael commented Nov 29, 2016

With the newer SPM12, it is now possible to use "slice onsets" in milliseconds, instead of the good old simple slice order.

I've tested if there is any difference between slice_order [0 1 2 3,...] or [0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0,...] and with my test data there was none.

SPM12 and SPM8, both accept the float point approach, but SPM8 crashes if one tries to use actual onsets, i.e. [0.0 66.66 133.33, 200.0...].

With the newer SPM12, it is now possible to use "slice onsets" in milliseconds, instead of the good old simple slice order.

I've tested if there is any difference between slice_order [0 1 2 3,...] or [0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0,...] and with my test data there was none.

SPM12 and SPM8, both accept the float point approach, but SPM8 crashes if one tries to use actual onsets, i.e. [0.0 66.66 133.33, 200.0...].
slice_order = traits.List(traits.Int(), field='so',
desc=('1-based order in which slices are '
slice_order = traits.List(traits.Float(), field='so',
desc=('1-based order or onset in which slices are '
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

could you confirm SPM requires onsets in milliseconds and make it explicit in this description?

The exact description of SPM is as follows:
"Alternatively you can enter the slice timing in ms for each slice individually. If doing so, the next item (Reference Slice) will contain a reference time (in ms) instead of the slice index of the reference slice."
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Dec 5, 2016

Current coverage is 70.93% (diff: 100%)

Merging #1724 into master will increase coverage by 0.12%

@@             master      #1724   diff @@
==========================================
  Files          1030       1030          
  Lines         51848      52191   +343   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches       7338       7409    +71   
==========================================
+ Hits          36714      37021   +307   
- Misses        14040      14066    +26   
- Partials       1094       1104    +10   

Powered by Codecov. Last update ca65037...2fc998b

@chrisgorgo chrisgorgo merged commit 877e223 into nipy:master Dec 9, 2016
@miykael miykael deleted the patch-3 branch December 14, 2016 18:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants