<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Hi Hamed,<div>Is your data in single precision? I’ve had a similar problem in the past where conversion to double precision fixed the issue.</div><div><br></div><div>clayton</div><div><br><div id="AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On 23 Jul 2018, at 12:51, Hamed Taheri <<a href="mailto:hamedtaheri@yahoo.com">hamedtaheri@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div><div>Hello all,</div><div><br></div><div>I have a problem with rank(EEG.data).</div><div>Actually, before running the ICA I'm using rank(EEG.data) to run the ICA in the proper rank with PCA. But the given results by rank(EEG.data) are very strange.</div><div>For example, I have 64 channels EEG and after preprocessing I have 60 but the rank(EEG.data) gives me 11 or for another data 20. <br></div><div>I've tried with several data and all results were strange. I was in doubt maybe I made a bridge between channels during injecting gel but I've tried with another data which I'm sure they are perfect but I see the same problem. <br></div><div>Do you know what can be my fault or what is the reason of this issue?</div><div>I remember if data wasn't full rank the EEGLAB gave us a message before running the ICA which you will have fewer ICs and showed up the number of ICs but now I don't have this message even if I know I interpolated for instance 5 channels. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I would be so thankful if you could help me.</div><div><br></div><div>Hamed<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="ydp90ad2769signature"><div style="font-size:13px;"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>