Back to the main page.
Bug 2593 - confusion between cfg.numcomponent and cfg.fastica.numOfIC
| Status | CLOSED FIXED |
| Reported | 2014-05-27 14:09:00 +0200 |
| Modified | 2019-08-10 12:29:31 +0200 |
| Product: | FieldTrip |
| Component: | core |
| Version: | unspecified |
| Hardware: | PC |
| Operating System: | Linux |
| Importance: | P5 normal |
| Assigned to: | Eelke Spaak |
| URL: | |
| Tags: | |
| Depends on: | |
| Blocks: | |
| See also: |
Johanna - 2014-05-27 14:09:25 +0200
From the help documentation, it seems possible to specify cfg.fastica.numOfIC instead of cfg.numcomponent in ft_componentanalysis. However, that is not true, since line 440 is: cfg.fastica.numOfIC = cfg.numcomponent; Thus only cfg.numcomponent can be set by the user. Should the code be changed so that either can be set by the user, or a warning in the documentation (where cfg.fastica.numOfIC is listed) and/or a warning/error at the beginning to check the cfg in case the user specified the cfg.fastica.numOfIC?
Johanna - 2014-05-27 14:14:25 +0200
Actually, the same now applies for the case of 'runica' after Roemer's recent fix for the re-opened bug 903.
Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen - 2014-05-27 15:14:51 +0200
Would it make sense to do the following: if the user specifies cfg.(icamethod).numOfIC (or however it's called for runica etc), let this take precedence over cfg.numcomponent (but throw a warning when the user defines both explicitly, and when the user defines them to be different). If cfg.(icamethod).numOfIC is not defined, use cfg.numcomponent. Something similar may also apply to dss.
Roemer van der Meij - 2014-05-27 16:25:48 +0200
(In reply to Jan-Mathijs Schoffelen from comment #2) Taking either if it is specified makes sense. When both are specified an error might be best though, as it is unclear which one to interpret.
Eelke Spaak - 2014-06-20 15:26:59 +0200
bash-4.1$ svn commit ft_componentanalysis.m test/test_bug2593.m Sending ft_componentanalysis.m Adding test/test_bug2593.m Transmitting file data .. Committed revision 9646.