ENH: clearer error for mixed 10–20 EEG electrode names #13622
Conversation
AasmaGupta
requested review from
agramfort,
dengemann,
jasmainak and
mscheltienne
as code owners
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
|
This PR adds a clearer error message for mixed 10–20 EEG electrode naming |
doc/changes/dev/13447.enhance.rst
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| Improve the error message raised when mixed 10–20 EEG electrode naming | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This file is mis-named and lacks a :newcontrib: entry, can you look at other examples in that directory? And also you'll need an entry in doc/changes/names.inc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I looked into it and have made the new entry under :newcontib: and updated the file.
mne/channels/tests/test_layout.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| with pytest.raises( | ||
| ValueError, | ||
| match="10.?20", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’ve updated the error message to be explicit and deterministic and replaced the .? with “mixed 10–20 naming conventions”. I hope that helps!
| @@ -0,0 +1 @@ | |||
| Improve the error message raised by :func:`mne.viz.plot_topomap` (via :func:`mne.channels.layout._auto_topomap_coords`) when mixed 10–20 EEG electrode naming conventions are detected, by :newcontrib:`Aasma Gupta`. No newline at end of file | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should only reference public functions in changelogs
| Improve the error message raised by :func:`mne.viz.plot_topomap` (via :func:`mne.channels.layout._auto_topomap_coords`) when mixed 10–20 EEG electrode naming conventions are detected, by :newcontrib:`Aasma Gupta`. | |
| Improve the error message raised by :func:`mne.viz.plot_topomap` when mixed 10–20 EEG electrode naming conventions are detected, by :newcontrib:`Aasma Gupta`. |
larsoner
left a comment
larsoner
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@britta-wstnr I think you opened the original issue... can you look and see if it does what you had in mind?
| raise ValueError( | ||
| "Duplicate EEG electrode positions detected due to mixed 10–20 " | ||
| "naming conventions.\n" | ||
| "You appear to have both old (T3/T4/T5/T6) and new (T7/T8/P7/P8) " | ||
| "electrode names present.\n\n" | ||
| "Please drop one set before plotting, for example:\n" | ||
| " inst.drop_channels(['T3', 'T4', 'T5', 'T6'])\n" | ||
| "or\n" | ||
| " inst.drop_channels(['T7', 'T8', 'P7', 'P8'])" | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@britta-wstnr suggested that we make a decisive suggestion here about which electrodes to keep (T3-T6 or T7-T8), which is probably a good idea. I don't use the 10-20 system much so don't have an opinion. Does anyone else have an opinion?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure which set of electrodes should be preferred. I'll be glad to make changes according to your suggestion. Just let me know!
3 participants
Reference issue (if any)
Fixes #13447
What does this implement/fix?
This PR improves the error raised when plotting topomaps with duplicate EEG
electrode positions caused by mixed 10–20 naming conventions
(T3/T4/T5/T6 vs T7/T8/P7/P8).
Instead of a generic "overlapping positions" error, a clearer and more
actionable message is raised that explains the naming conflict and suggests
how to resolve it by dropping one set of channels.
Additional information
A regression test has been added to ensure the clearer error message is raised
when mixed 10–20 electrode naming conventions are present.