Right now, the GUI has no notion of events. Allowing users to pass events could open up for several enhancements and new views:
Existing views:
- TraceView/TraceMapView: select event types and move to next/previous event
- ScatteViews: display events on top of scatter
New views:
- TimeAlignedRasters: rasters for one or multiple units aligned with specific event types
- PSTHs: construct and view PSTHs on the fly
My proposal, for now, is to have the run_mainwindow accept an events argument, structured as a dictionary, where users can either provied 'time_s' (plus optionally 'duration_s') or 'sample_index' (and optionally 'duration_samples').
{
'event_label1': {
'time_s': [...],
'duration_s': [...], # optional
'sample_index': [...], # optional
'duration_samples': [...] # optional
},
'event_label12': {
'time_s': [...],
'duration_s': [...], # optional
'sample_index': [...], # optional
'duration_samples': [...] # optional
},
}
@samuelgarcia @chrishalcrow what do you think?
Note: we need to be able to handle timestamps (see #181), since when providing times we assume they are synced with the recording timestamps
Right now, the GUI has no notion of events. Allowing users to pass events could open up for several enhancements and new views:
Existing views:
New views:
My proposal, for now, is to have the
run_mainwindowaccept aneventsargument, structured as a dictionary, where users can either provied 'time_s' (plus optionally 'duration_s') or 'sample_index' (and optionally 'duration_samples').@samuelgarcia @chrishalcrow what do you think?
Note: we need to be able to handle timestamps (see #181), since when providing times we assume they are synced with the recording timestamps