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
We intentionally used a broad definition for nidm:Map: "An ordered set of values corresponding to the discrete sampling of some process (e.g. brain MRI data measured on a regular 3D lattice; or brain cortical surface data measured irregularly over the cortex)" that encompasses both volumetric and surface data.
So far the NIDM-Results specification has mainly focused on volumetric data. In a future release, we should check the consistency of the model with respect to the representation of surface data (and add tests).
I would be happy to contribute! I think @gllmflndn was also interested in this in the context of the analysis of MEG data.
This issue is open following @bthirion's comment on the NIDM-Results minimal JSON API.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We intentionally used a broad definition for
nidm:Map
: "An ordered set of values corresponding to the discrete sampling of some process (e.g. brain MRI data measured on a regular 3D lattice; or brain cortical surface data measured irregularly over the cortex)" that encompasses both volumetric and surface data.So far the NIDM-Results specification has mainly focused on volumetric data. In a future release, we should check the consistency of the model with respect to the representation of surface data (and add tests).
I would be happy to contribute! I think @gllmflndn was also interested in this in the context of the analysis of MEG data.
This issue is open following @bthirion's comment on the NIDM-Results minimal JSON API.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: