A Comparison of Neuroelectrophysiology Databases
Authors:
Priyanka Subash,
Alex Gray,
Misque Boswell,
Samantha L. Cohen,
Rachael Garner,
Sana Salehi,
Calvary Fisher,
Samuel Hobel,
Satrajit Ghosh,
Yaroslav Halchenko,
Benjamin Dichter,
Russell A. Poldrack,
Chris Markiewicz,
Dora Hermes,
Arnaud Delorme,
Scott Makeig,
Brendan Behan,
Alana Sparks,
Stephen R Arnott,
Zhengjia Wang,
John Magnotti,
Michael S. Beauchamp,
Nader Pouratian,
Arthur W. Toga,
Dominique Duncan
Abstract:
As data sharing has become more prevalent, three pillars - archives, standards, and analysis tools - have emerged as critical components in facilitating effective data sharing and collaboration. This paper compares four freely available intracranial neuroelectrophysiology data repositories: Data Archive for the BRAIN Initiative (DABI), Distributed Archives for Neurophysiology Data Integration (DAN…
▽ More
As data sharing has become more prevalent, three pillars - archives, standards, and analysis tools - have emerged as critical components in facilitating effective data sharing and collaboration. This paper compares four freely available intracranial neuroelectrophysiology data repositories: Data Archive for the BRAIN Initiative (DABI), Distributed Archives for Neurophysiology Data Integration (DANDI), OpenNeuro, and Brain-CODE. The aim of this review is to describe archives that provide researchers with tools to store, share, and reanalyze both human and non-human neurophysiology data based on criteria that are of interest to the neuroscientific community. The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) and Neurodata Without Borders (NWB) are utilized by these archives to make data more accessible to researchers by implementing a common standard. As the necessity for integrating large-scale analysis into data repository platforms continues to grow within the neuroscientific community, this article will highlight the various analytical and customizable tools developed within the chosen archives that may advance the field of neuroinformatics.
△ Less
Submitted 30 August, 2023; v1 submitted 26 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
Compensated de Casteljau algorithm in $K$ times the working precision
Authors:
Danny Hermes
Abstract:
In computer aided geometric design a polynomial is usually represented in Bernstein form. This paper presents a family of compensated algorithms to accurately evaluate a polynomial in Bernstein form with floating point coefficients. The principle is to apply error-free transformations to improve the traditional de Casteljau algorithm. At each stage of computation, round-off error is passed on to f…
▽ More
In computer aided geometric design a polynomial is usually represented in Bernstein form. This paper presents a family of compensated algorithms to accurately evaluate a polynomial in Bernstein form with floating point coefficients. The principle is to apply error-free transformations to improve the traditional de Casteljau algorithm. At each stage of computation, round-off error is passed on to first order errors, then to second order errors, and so on. After the computation has been "filtered" $(K - 1)$ times via this process, the resulting output is as accurate as the de Casteljau algorithm performed in $K$ times the working precision. Forward error analysis and numerical experiments illustrate the accuracy of this family of algorithms.
△ Less
Submitted 9 April, 2019; v1 submitted 30 August, 2018;
originally announced August 2018.
A Curious Case of Curbed Condition
Authors:
Danny Hermes
Abstract:
In computer aided geometric design a polynomial is usually represented in Bernstein form. The de Casteljau algorithm is the most well-known algorithm for evaluating a polynomial in this form. Evaluation via the de Casteljau algorithm has relative forward error proportional to the condition number of evaluation. However, for a particular family of polynomials, a curious phenomenon occurs: the obser…
▽ More
In computer aided geometric design a polynomial is usually represented in Bernstein form. The de Casteljau algorithm is the most well-known algorithm for evaluating a polynomial in this form. Evaluation via the de Casteljau algorithm has relative forward error proportional to the condition number of evaluation. However, for a particular family of polynomials, a curious phenomenon occurs: the observed error is much smaller than the expected error bound. We examine this family and prove a much stronger error bound than the one that applies to the general case. Then we provide a few examples to demonstrate the difference in rounding.
△ Less
Submitted 13 June, 2018;
originally announced June 2018.
