[Eeglablist] Volunteer second opinion on three ambiguous intervals in 129-channel EEG

[daria agafonova]

Hello EEGLAB community,

I am validating a provenance-tracked preprocessing workflow for
129-channel EEG. Automated QC is kept separate from manual scientific
decisions, and three short temporal prompts remain genuinely ambiguous
after my primary review.

I am looking for one EEG researcher with experience in manual artifact
annotation who could provide a blinded second opinion. The review
should take about 15–20 minutes and asks only:

1. Should each interval be kept or marked bad?
2. If marked bad, what are its approximate onset and offset?
3. Should it be omitted from ICA fitting, task epochs, or both?

I have prepared a controlled package with three static panels, a blank
decision table, and short instructions. It contains no raw EEG,
participant mapping, or primary decisions. I would share it privately
only after agreeing on an appropriate transfer method.

Further context is available in this MNE Forum post:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mne.discourse.group/t/volunteer-second-opinion-on-three-ambiguous-artifact-intervals-in-high-density-eeg/11939__;!!Mih3wA!AuA8PmC-1K3qXvrDDHKyJZwj4vtclwOwYXtouuBxfpIqsFybjSx425LuYW8v9UMwIuR7GNcHkYZWWfIsQO5uaizm3EegiYeg$ 

This is a voluntary and deliberately small request. If you may be able
to help, please reply privately.