From: John Morrison (jmorrison_at_ahc.net.au)
Date: 2002-02-28 03:18:03
We'll have to look at it later when we have the platform up and going and
have some REAL data to play with. :-)
Then we can make an educated decisions on which way we to go.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave [mailto:dfisher_at_pophost.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2002 12:57 PM
> To: buildcheapeeg_at_yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [buildcheapeeg] You need programmer?
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:05:59 +1000, John Morrison wrote:
>
> >> Why not stick to TCP/IP ? I was piping data sampled at 5kHz over my
> >> ethernet via TCP/IP between my laptop and desktop without problems.
> >> Why make it more complex if the simple option works ? It would be
> >> better to delay the analysis than to try and patch up a stream with
> >> holes in it.
> >Well as the data stream is tiny TCP would work very well.
> >I thought from the way Dave suggested UDP that there was a LOT of data.
>
> My concern was one of speed. There is a lot of handshaking going
> on in the TCP
> connection that would introduce added latency from the point that
> your brain
> produced the data and the receiving processor finally got the
> data. All this
> is theory at this point. If the EEG data can be transmitted
> quickly "enough"
> to make a usable session (i.e., reward/inhibit protocol, or some other
> responsive element from a biofeedback system) via TCP, then yes
> -- that would
> be the best and easiest solution. Packet reconstruction, synchronization,
> etc., is all taken care of in the TCP protocol.
>
> Dave.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> buildcheapeeg-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:39 BST