Skip to content
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

volterra_expansion_order documentation error #3213

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 2, 2020
Merged

volterra_expansion_order documentation error #3213

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 2, 2020

Conversation

servoz
Copy link
Collaborator

@servoz servoz commented May 15, 2020

For fMRI model specification, in SPM, matlabbatch{n}.spm.stats.fmri_spec.volt = 2 corresponds to 'Model Interactions' and matlabbatch{n}.spm.stats.fmri_spec.volt =1 corresponds to 'Do not model Interactions'.
Currently, for the corresponding process in nipype, the Level1Design, we see volterra_expansion_order = traits.Enum(1, 2, field="volt", desc=("Model interactions - yes:1, no:2")).
I guess the correct description should rather be volterra_expansion_order = traits.Enum(1, 2, field="volt", desc=("Model interactions - no:1, yes:2"))

For fMRI model specification, in SPM, matlabbatch{n}.spm.stats.fmri_spec.volt = 2 corresponds to 'Model Interactions' and matlabbatch{n}.spm.stats.fmri_spec.volt =1 corresponds to 'Do not model Interactions'.
Currently, for the corresponding process in nipype, the Level1Design, we see volterra_expansion_order = traits.Enum(1, 2, field="volt", desc=("Model interactions - yes:1, no:2")).
I guess the correct description should rather be volterra_expansion_order = traits.Enum(1, 2, field="volt", desc=("Model interactions - no:1, yes:2"))
@effigies
Copy link
Member

effigies commented May 15, 2020

Seems reasonable. Is this consistent across SPM versions?

@servoz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

servoz commented May 16, 2020

I just checked for spm8 and it's the same thing. Without checking the previous versions (SPM5, SPM2, etc.) I think it's consistent across SPM versions.

@effigies
Copy link
Member

effigies commented Jun 2, 2020

Sounds good. As it only changes the docs, it won't break scripts that work now, so I'm 👍 for merge.

Apologies for the delay. Very busy time of year.

@effigies effigies merged commit ddd9b55 into nipy:master Jun 2, 2020
@servoz
Copy link
Collaborator Author

servoz commented Jun 3, 2020

thanks.

@effigies effigies added this to the 1.5.0 milestone May 1, 2021
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.

2 participants