From: John Morrison (jmorrison_at_ahc.net.au)
Date: 2002-02-06 09:51:36
Doug
> Don't take it the wrong way, all ideas are useful, and I have
> shared plenty of my own. The point was that the electrode
> is so critical, because we are measuring miniscule amounts,
> that the trade-off in going away from traditional paste/prep
> will probably be noise. I tried some flextrodes which are
> pasteless, but I got better results with paste. It seems that
> the active electrodes, with amplification at the source, may
> be a way to avoid the goo, but I think we should get the
> basics working first.
No worries I didn't take it the wrong way!
> Aside from software engineering, I have done a fair
> amount of systems analysis and design and project mgmt.
> Some would say that programming is the easy part. It is a
> challenge to get really good specs hammered out. I once
> designed a system to automate work for a dept that had
> never used computers, it was challenging! Trying to get
> even objectives nailed down was hard. Trying to get the
> detail on how they actually do their work was like pulling
> teeth. That is why I say that functional specs are a good
I agree!
Creating the spec AND getting the target, customer, audience
to agree to the spec is the HARD bit.
After that writing the code SEEMS/is a snap. :-)
> way to think about this EEG software problem. Best case
> scenario would be if we could pick the brain of an NF
> practitioner. Next best scenario would be to look at some
> existing software. The FFT + filtering is one thing, but
> getting the thresholds/configuration right is another.
Someone could always "look" at software they already have. :-)
NOT to duplicate it of course just to stimulate thought!
> Namaste,
> Doug
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:38 BST