[Eeglablist] ICA running very slowly

Makoto Miyakoshi mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu
Thu Feb 9 18:42:46 PST 2017


Dear Hannah, Arno, and Andreas,

There may be EEGLAB plugins that calculate inverse matrix etc that needs
double precision. I would use double precision all the time just because
I'm lazy and have more than enough RAM, a typical solution in California.

Makoto

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Andreas Widmann <widmann at uni-leipzig.de>
wrote:

> Dear Arno,
>
> > If you want to be conservative, and you have the memory and extra time
> (since everything will be about twice slower), then you should by all mean
> change the option in EEGLAB so the data is kept at all time in double
> precision.
> I fully agree to this :) Thanks for the discussion!
>
> Best,
> Andreas
>
> > Am 04.02.2017 um 17:52 schrieb Arnaud Delorme <arno at ucsd.edu>:
> >
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > For spherical interpolation, the legendre function calculation is
> calculated in double precision, as well as the inverse of one of the
> resulting matrix. The actual interpolation consist in multiplication and
> sum of numbers equal to the number of channels (which is typically low).
> Typically, numerical issues become significant in single precision when
> performing operations on several thousands or millions of numbers.
> >
> > I have asked Nima to show me cases where it made a difference (beyond
> ICA, filtering), and he never did. If someone does, we will update the code
> accordingly to convert to double precision where appropriate. If you want
> to be conservative, and you have the memory and extra time (since
> everything will be about twice slower), then you should by all mean change
> the option in EEGLAB so the data is kept at all time in double precision.
> >
> > In the end, we start with about 19 bits of relevant data. I still
> believe that performing all operations in 64-bit double precision is
> overkill.
> >
> > Arno
> >
> >>> Yes, this is right which is why the data is automatically converted to
> double precision when filtering, resampling and ICA.
> >> No, I do not agree that it can be strictly limited to these three types
> of operations. Also Nima’s PREP pipeline "consistently maintain[s] double
> precision computations throughout.“ To my experience double precision for
> example matters in spherical spline interpolation (default in EEGLAB).
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Andreas
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Arno
> >>>
> >>>> On Feb 4, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Andreas Widmann <widmann at uni-leipzig.de>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok. So what do you think about Nima’s argument that "double precision
> computation is essential because round off in single precision quickly
> destroys any natural commutativity of the linear operations“ (
> http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fninf.2015.00016/full)?
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Andreas
> >>>>
> >>>>> My opinion on this is that there is no reason to force the import of
> data as double precision because the number of relevant bits in EEG data is
> lower than 19 bits (I have searched for the reference but could not find
> it). BIOSEMI record 24-bits of data for example. The EDF standard format is
> limited to 16 bits so some data may be lost which is why BIOSEMI adapted
> the format to BDF. Other manufacturers use 32-bit formats. I do not know of
> any data recorded with more than 32-bit precision.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Single precision is 32 bits (32 zeros and ones). Therefore there is
> plenty of room for EEG data. Converting to double precision (64 bits) when
> the data is being imported would not be useful. It is useful sometimes to
> convert the data to double precision when filtering or when running ICA
> (because of numerical imprecisions, ICA with single precision data can be
> different from ICA with double precision data). The data is always
> converted to double precision before running ICA (unless there is not
> enough RAM and then the algorithm will run in single precision).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, you should keep your data in single precision. EEGLAB will
> automatically handle the conversion to double precision when filtering,
> resampling, or when running ICA (then convert back the result to single
> precision). You cannot disable that feature (nor should you want to).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Arno
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:10 PM, Hiebel, Hannah (
> hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at) <hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear Andreas,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> sorry for the misunderstanding. When running your function (eeglab
> 13.5.4b) the result is double (under the condition that option_single = 0).
> >>>>>> That is, once manually converted to double, the format remains
> double.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What I reported was the other case: if *not* converting manually to
> double after the import, the data remains single only if both option_single
> and option_savetwofiles are set to false. If option_savetwofiles is set to
> true, there actually is an automatic conversion to double when loading the
> set again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Like this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> function testcase_precision_reverse
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> EEG = pop_loadbv('/yourpath', 'yourfile.vhdr');
> >>>>>> result1 = class( EEG.data )
> >>>>>> pop_saveset( EEG, 'filename', 'prec_test_rev.set', 'filepath',
> '/yourpath');
> >>>>>> EEG = pop_loadset( 'filename', 'prec_test_rev.set', 'filepath',
> '/yourpath');
> >>>>>> result2 = class( EEG.data )
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> end
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Result:
> >>>>>> if option_savetwofiles = 0: result1 = single, result2 = single
> >>>>>> if option_savetwofiles = 1: result1 = single, result2 = double
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just thought it might be good to report that this also (and it
> explains why I initially ended up with different formats).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, I will convert manually to double and see if it has any
> influence on the ICA runtimes. So you recommend always converting to double
> after importing Brain Vision Analyzer files?
> >>>>>> How much impact does it in your opinion have on subsequent
> processing? Is it just preferrable or absolutely necessary?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Hannah
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ________________________________________
> >>>>>> Von: Andreas Widmann <widmann at uni-leipzig.de>
> >>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Februar 2017 17:29
> >>>>>> An: Hiebel, Hannah (hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at)
> >>>>>> Cc: mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu; eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Eeglablist] ICA running very slowly
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When now loading the dataset again with pop_loadset, the format
> remains single if only the set-file exists;
> >>>>>> What do you mean by „remains“. Did you manually convert to double
> before (i.e. after import) as suggested? As I wrote this conversion is
> *not* done automatically just by setting the option. Could you please save
> the following function (no attachments allowed here) in a file and run it
> after adjusting filename and path to something existing on your system (and
> possibly repair single quotes broken by my mail app) and report the result?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> function testcase_precision
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> EEG = pop_loadbv('/yourpath', 'yourfile.vhdr');
> >>>>>> EEG.data = double( EEG.data );
> >>>>>> pop_saveset( EEG, 'filename', 'prec_test.set', 'filepath',
> '/yourpath');
> >>>>>> EEG = pop_loadset( 'filename', 'prec_test.set', 'filepath',
> '/yourpath');
> >>>>>> class( EEG.data )
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> end
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To get back to my data: what I can tell is that the data format is
> single precision after the import (I import Brain Vision Analyzer files
> with the eeglab extension: bva-io v1.5.12, pop_loadbv).
> >>>>>> Yes, bva-io imports with single precision. This is rather due to
> historic reasons. Not sure what the current EEGLAB policy is here. I would
> not object changing this to double in a future version. Arno, what do you
> think?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Andreas
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 02.02.2017 um 16:44 schrieb Hiebel, Hannah (
> hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at) <hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Andreas and Makoto,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of course, I am working on it! I am a bit reluctant to update the
> eeglab version in the middle of my analysis – wouldn’t this potentially
> result in additional inconsistencies? I used eeglab 13.4.4b on my main
> computer; I just ran additional tests with the other version.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I eventually managed to figure out what affects data precision:
> irrespective of the eeglab version (I tested with 13.4.4b, 13.5.4b, and
> 13.6.5b), changes result from saving/loading a dataset, depending on the
> settings in "memory and other options". You cannot see this when debugging
> your own script as it occurs in the process of saving/ loading itself. I
> think the function responsible ispop_loadset() which has a different effect
> on the data format (EEG.data) depending on how the dataset was saved before
> (option_savetwofiles in pop_editoptions , GUI: Memory and other options:
> "If set, save not one but two files for each dataset").
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> option_savetwofiles = 1  -->  two files are saved: .set and .fdt
> >>>>>>> option_savetwofiles = 0 -->  one file is saved: .set
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When now loading the dataset again with pop_loadset, the format
> remains single if only the set-file exists; the data is converted to double
> if the data is stored in the fdt-file (2 files were saved before). I think
> it happens within the function eeg_checkset which is called by pop_loadset.
> I don’t know if this is intentional or not… but if so, it’s very difficult
> to track (at least for me).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To get back to my data: what I can tell is that the data format is
> single precision after the import (I import Brain Vision Analyzer files
> with the eeglab extension: bva-io v1.5.12, pop_loadbv). As far as I
> understand the function, this seems to be "standard" (unless an older
> Matlab version is used).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am currently working on a simplified version I can more easily
> pass on to you (raw data files, code). Of course I rejected the identical
> bad segments (same mat-file with start/end points used for rejection).
> >>>>>>> Thanks  for the comment on linked mastoid reference - I am still
> not sure here but I hope it becomes clear in the script then.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Hannah
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Von: Makoto Miyakoshi <mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Februar 2017 04:09
> >>>>>>> An: Hiebel, Hannah (hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at)
> >>>>>>> Cc: Andreas Widmann; eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Eeglablist] ICA running very slowly
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Hannah,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> or take on your offer, Makoto.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually I'm not a debugging guy. The official bug report place
> for EEGLAB is Bugzilla.
> >>>>>>> https://sccn.ucsd.edu/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi
> >>>>>>> You can file your claim here. Thank you for your patience and
> cooperation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That being said, if you don't see any error message, it's very
> hard for me to imagine what is wrong. You may also want to give us more
> info. For example, it is always very slow... if not, when it becomes slow
> etc. Also, all other basic info, such as sampling rate, data length, number
> of channels, etc etc...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Makoto
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Hiebel, Hannah (
> hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at)<hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Andreas and Makoto,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thank you for your additional suggestions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am not really familiar with bugtracker, the easiest way for me
> would be sharing the data via Dropbox and send you the link separately, or
> take on your offer, Makoto.
> >>>>>>> I wonder if I could have a look at the code first – if you spot
> anything wrong here, you wouldn’t have to make the effort with the actual
> data. I could then easily provide the datasets sufficient to run runica().
> >>>>>>> Andreas, if I wanted to provide everything you’d need to replicate
> my whole routine, I’d have to make available several datasets, additional
> mat-files (e.g. with info about bad segments) and functions...
> >>>>>>> I'd suggest starting with the final datasets and then decide how
> to best proceed, if that's okay.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regarding your comments:
> >>>>>>> I thought only re-referencing to average reference reduces the
> data rank (I re-referenced to linked mastoids instead). Maybe there are
> other steps potentially resulting in rank-deficiency I am not aware of?
> >>>>>>> When checking with rank(EEG.data(:,:)) it seems fine, I don’t know
> if that’s sufficient.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Makoto, I am working with ICA for the first time and thus have no
> experience with how clean the data should be. One subject with long
> runtimes indeed doesn’t have the best data quality (neck muscle tension)
> but I had the same runtime problems in a subject with very clean EEG data.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thank you, Andreas, for your explanation regarding single vs.
> double precision. On additional remark: When I run the same script on
> different computers with different Matlab/eeglab version (same setting for
> option_single), the format (EEG.data) differs (single /double precision) –
> this is quite confusing for me, to be honest.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>>>> Hannah
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Von: Makoto Miyakoshi <mmiyakoshi at ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Jänner 2017 23:20
> >>>>>>> An: Andreas Widmann
> >>>>>>> Cc: Hiebel, Hannah (hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at);
> eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Eeglablist] ICA running very slowly
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Hannah and Andreas,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Btw, did you check data rank?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yeah this is another thing. runica() has a rank checker, but if it
> does not work well for whatever reason, the calculation will be difficult!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> By the way, AMICA does not seem to change its computation speed
> regardless of data quality. runica() does it clearly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hannah, if you are willing to share the data, just give me data
> that is sufficient to run runica(). If you don't have any method to share
> data, I'll give you SCCN server account separately. Let me know.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Makoto
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Andreas Widmann <
> widmann at uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Dear Hannah,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> please provide one affected raw dataset and the absolutely minimal
> script demonstrating the issue (mainly your various filters, artifact
> rejection, and possibly epoching or re-referencing etc). Presumably easiest
> is via the bugtracker. Also better for future reference.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Using double precision is indeed to be preferred (the firfilt
> plugin uses double precision for filtering internally anyway). Note
> however, that data are not automatically converted to double precision
> using the option (but NOT converted automatically to single). Depending on
> your raw data format and importer you possibly have to do that manually.
> Btw, did you check data rank?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Andreas
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Am 25.01.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Hiebel, Hannah (
> hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at) <hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Dear Andreas, dear Makoto,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have re-run the pre-processing routine and ICA for one of the
> affected subjects with consistent Matlab version (R2015b) and still get the
> same results in terms of runtime (>40 h / 14.5 h / < 1h depending on the
> previously used high-pass filter). Thus, the problems don’t seem to have
> been caused by inconsistent versions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thank you Makoto for your suggestion, I haven’t used the
> trimOutlier() plugin so far - I will try to check for outliers that way. If
> bad data quality was the reason, shouldn’t the long runtimes (in a specific
> subject) occur irrespective of the used high-pass filter?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> One aspect I noticed is that the data format (EEG.data) is single
> precision – could this be the problem? I’ve just read in the PREP pipeline
> paper that double precision computation is essential for filtering; it is
> mentioned that the eeg_checkset function converts EEG data to single
> precision per default and one should override this default by changing the
> eeglab settings (pop_editoptions, set option_single to false). I have
> changed the eeglab options following the instructions on the eeglab wiki
> page ('File' -> 'Memory and other options' -> 'If set, use single precision
> under...' uncheck it). In my understanding this should be the same, right?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I appreciate your offer to try replicate the problem. I am not
> sure though what I would have to make available to you - would the
> pre-processed dataset(s) of one affected subject be sufficient? Also, do
> you need to be able to actually run my scripts or would it be enough to see
> the relevant parts of the code? (because in the main scripts I also
> retrieve information from additional files and call custom-made functions
> to process co-registered eye-tracking data…).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your effort,
> >>>>>>>> Hannah
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hannah Hiebel, Mag.rer.nat.
> >>>>>>>> Cognitive Psychology & Neuroscience
> >>>>>>>> Department of Psychology, University of Graz
> >>>>>>>> Universitätsplatz 2, 8010 Graz, Austria
> >>>>>>>> Von: Andreas Widmann <widmann at uni-leipzig.de>
> >>>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Jänner 2017 21:53
> >>>>>>>> An: Hiebel, Hannah (hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at)
> >>>>>>>> Cc: eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Eeglablist] ICA running very slowly
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Hannah,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I would like to try to replicate this behavior. Could you please
> make available one of the affected datasets and the relevant parts of the
> code used for pre-processing and ICA, e.g. via the bugtracker or Dropbox?
> Are there possibly data discontinuities without boundary markers? Did you
> keep MATLAB version constant?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>> Andreas
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Am 19.01.2017 um 09:41 schrieb Hiebel, Hannah (
> hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at) <hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at>:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Alberto and Tarik,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> thank you very much for your suggestions. I work on a computer
> with i7 3.60 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM or notebook with i7 2.5 GHz and 8GB
> Ram – this should be okay.
> >>>>>>>>> Gladly, the ICA eventually finds a solution and the IC maps look
> good. However, the question for me is still why does the ICA become >10
> times slower after changing the pre-processing routine. I’ve continued
> testing and indeed the high-pass filter seems to be responsible for the
> differences.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In my recent routine I used the eeglab windowed sinc FIR filter
> with 1 Hz cut-off frequency, 1 Hz transition bandwidth, 0.001 passband
> ripple, Kaiser window. When I change the filter (settings) while keeping
> all other steps the same, I see huge differences in ICA runtime in some
> subjects. That is, when using a 0.1 Hz Butterworth filter instead, ICA is
> running fast again (< 1h for the subjects where it took > 30h before). With
> the eeglab basic FIR filter with 1 Hz passband edge and default settings
> defined by the internal heuristic (resulting in 0.5 Hz cut-off, 1 Hz trans.
> bandwidth) it’s also running much faster in most subjects but already takes
> >20h in the “problematic” cases.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This gives me the impression that the higher cut-off frequency
> causes the problems (or maybe stopband edge and attenuation are more
> decisive?).
> >>>>>>>>> That's very surprising as I would not have expected the filter
> to have such an impact and a higher cut-off is normally recommended.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I’d be very grateful if anyone could provide more insight!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>> Hannah
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hannah Hiebel, Mag.rer.nat.
> >>>>>>>>> Cognitive Psychology & Neuroscience
> >>>>>>>>> Department of Psychology, University of Graz
> >>>>>>>>> Universitätsplatz 2, 8010 Graz, Austria
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Von: Alberto Sainz <albertosainzc at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Jänner 2017 04:29
> >>>>>>>>> An: Hiebel, Hannah (hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at)
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: eeglablist at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: [Eeglablist] ICA running very slowly
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I would suggest to try in a different computer. I have been
> applying ICA in a 14 electrode 30min continuous EEG recording (around 40mb)
> in two different computers. 2Ghz dual core computer took 1h. 2.2Ghz i7
> takes around 5 minutes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I know your data is larger but just to say that the processor
> (and probably the RAM if is too small) matters a lot.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Good luck
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2017-01-16 20:26 GMT+01:00 Hiebel, Hannah (
> hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at)<hannah.hiebel at uni-graz.at>:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am using ICA to clean my EEG data for eye-movement related
> artifacts. I’ve already done some testing in the past to see how certain
> pre-processing steps affect the quality of my decomposition (e.g. filter
> settings). In most cases, it took approximately 1-2 hours to run ICA for
> single subjects (62 channels: 59 EEG, 3 EOG channels).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now that I run ICA on my final datasets it suddenly takes hours
> over hours to do only a few steps. It still works fine in some subjects but
> in others runica takes up to 50 hours. I observed that in some cases the
> weights blow up (learning rate is lowered many times); in others it starts
> right away without lowering the learning rate but every step takes ages.
> >>>>>>>>> I’ve done some troubleshooting to see if a specific
> pre-processing step causes this behavior but I cannot find a consistent
> pattern. It seems to me though that (at least in some cases) the high-pass
> filter played a role – can anyone explain how this is related? Could a
> high-pass filter potentially be too strict?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On the eeglablist I could only find discussions about rank
> deficiency (mostly due to using average reference) as a potential reason. I
> re-referenced to linked mastoids – does this also affect the rank? When I
> check with rank(EEG.data(:, :)) it returns 62 though, which is equal to the
> number of  channels. For some of the “bad” subjects I nonehteless tried
> without re-referencing – no improvement. Also, reducing dimensionality with
> pca ("pca, 61") didn’t help.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any advice would be very much appreciated!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Many thanks in advance,
> >>>>>>>>> Hannah
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hannah Hiebel, Mag.rer.nat.
> >>>>>>>>> Cognitive Psychology & Neuroscience
> >>>>>>>>> Department of Psychology, University of Graz
> >>>>>>>>> Universitätsplatz 2, 8010 Graz, Austria
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest
> mime" to eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest
> mime" to eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
> eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime"
> to eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Makoto Miyakoshi
> >>>>>>> Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience
> >>>>>>> Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San
> Diego
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Makoto Miyakoshi
> >>>>>>> Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience
> >>>>>>> Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San
> Diego
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.
> ucsd.edu
> >>>>>> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime"
> to eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> >>> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.
> ucsd.edu
> >>> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime" to
> eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> > To unsubscribe, send an empty email to eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.
> ucsd.edu
> > For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime" to
> eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> Eeglablist page: http://sccn.ucsd.edu/eeglab/eeglabmail.html
> To unsubscribe, send an empty email to eeglablist-unsubscribe at sccn.
> ucsd.edu
> For digest mode, send an email with the subject "set digest mime" to
> eeglablist-request at sccn.ucsd.edu
>



-- 
Makoto Miyakoshi
Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience
Institute for Neural Computation, University of California San Diego
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sccn.ucsd.edu/pipermail/eeglablist/attachments/20170209/35cfa631/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the eeglablist mailing list