remi-gau / artemis_checklist Goto Github PK

Where did I notice this:

1. Item order 3 in pre-processing: "What kind of high-pass filter did you use?"
2. Item order 2 in measuremen: "The amplitude is measured from"

Options don't show up for these questions, and if you press "Skip" nothing happens (except that I see that something is briefly tries to load on my Firefox's "refresh" button. As a result, I cannot even get to further questions in this section.

I am not sure whether this has to do with anything, but I believe both of these are new preset variables :)

It's not possible to input a minus in any of the fields in float format

Additional ideas which artemis_cobidas spreadsheet cells can become preset variables in the future to reuse content in other spreadsheets:

• licenses (in study_id)

Item 8 questions "Did you average channels for presentation or show individual channels?" It's not clear when one answers "yes" whether they say "yes" to presenting averaged channels or individual channels.

Currently, only users who select topoplot will be asked about the units of the plot. I'm wondering why shouldn't we ask them about the units if they chose line plot or other as well. This is an open question, rather than an issue.

Mentioned on the UI repo

ReproNim/reproschema-ui#234

If all values for a section are entered and they all have green checkmarks, the progress bar on the top is not at 100% & one can’t see the “Next” button.

This question "What determined the number of trials each subject was presented with?" in the Design and Sample section does not show up.

It may be that I have resolved this, but I am leaving the issue so that we can check just in case: item_order value was erroneously the same (i.e. 6) for this and previous question. I have fixed this now - let's see if the issue dissapears with the next update of the app. :)

In Channels, if you choose "other" on item 2, there is no option to describe the "other" method. This is not in the cobidas_artemis table, either.

There is a confusion on what between and within subject conditions should be, questions 4-8. Maybe we can add a question for experimental design type (e.g. between-group factors, repeated measures, correlation etc.), no. of factors and levels, and then particularly for each level how many subjects per group, and how many trials (maybe make it clear how to present values without having to check the info sign).

The question "What kind of plot did you create" in line 2 of the visualization sheet currently forces you to choose one answer, whereas multiple plotting might be done to present the results.

Question “What action did you take regarding artifacts in step 2?” only occurs for step 2, but not step 1…? It’s in the spreadsheet in row 19, but not in the app.

Rationale: it includes operations with channels such as interpolation and rejection of channels now, which used to be in the preprocessing section before, so the title is not really correct anymore.

This is the new, and now first section, and sheet of the cobidas_artemis web-app.

I get the first question (item order 1: "How did you decide which channels would be included/excluded from analysis?"). Then I do not get to see any questions where visibility is not set to 1. The next question I can see is item order 23 (Did you reconstruct the signal from any missing or excluded channel?), whose visibility is also set to 1.

After this question, more questions (whose visibility depends on response to item 23) are skipped, and then question "Inclusion/Exclusion Reconstruction Order" (item order 29) shows up, whose visibility is not 1 (but it is the only one with a negation). It does not have any options (list is empty), and skipping doesn't work, so I cannot progress further.

Maybe an example could be added here so that the users know which format to use when writing the length/order e.g. 60Hz

There is a preamble in the cobidas_artemis table, but it's not showing in the app.

Maybe make this a multiple-choice question instead with the options:

1. reference electrode standardization technique (REST)
2. average reference (AR)
3. linked-mastoids/ears reference (LM)
4. bipolar reference
5. the Laplacian reference

Options taken from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10548-019-00707-x

This is just nitpicking now, but in item 22 of Design and Sample it should be OpenSesame instead of OpenSesam.

We do not need the IDK option in the ARTEM-IS table, but we cannot just delete this option because it is (probably?) shared with other eCOBIDAS projects. Instead, we need a new preset boolean variable, and I am unsure how to create one without messing anything up. After it is created, let us know, so we can post it everywhere in place of the current one. :)

The 2 questions after "Rationale for selection of channel locations used for waveform presentation in the figure" are not appearing, the progress bar hits 100% after this question. I believe the issue is in the item_order column because these last 2 questions are numbered as 1 and 2, instead of 15 and 16.

The way the map is currently presented makes it difficult to see which electrode is selected as they are stacked one over the other. Is it possible to adjust this so that when you select an electrode it comes up front to be easily readable, and moves to the back once you deselect it? Alternatively, we can consider separating the electrodes more so that they are all visible, e.g. like in this image

Provide reasons for deviation or explan how the cited time windows were combined

I know we can't have this at the moment, but perhaps we could do it later?

Some items would be easier to make with loops, e.g. artifact removal steps or listing number of trials and participants per condition and group.

Currently it is in an order that does not correspond to the order in the cobidas_artemis spreadsheet "Activity order" column.

The question "How many participants did each group have after exclusion?" shouldn't show if someone stated they had only 1 participant group in the study.

In item 15 of Acquisition, when selecting "other", there is no option to write which other online reference point was chosen.

Is this part of the larger visibility issue?

e.g: if one choses "other" to the first question about supplementary material types, they do not get a follow-up questions to specify which other supplements are there, and if one answers "yes" to the question about additional comments, they do not get a question where they can type in the comments.