Plot ica comparison #13215
Open
Plot ica comparison #13215
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Added visualization plots for different ICA algorithms for clean and noisy data
added visualization plots for different ICA algorithms and added fit times for both clean and noisy data.
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
created 13215.enhancement.rst file
…if/mne-python into plot_ica_comparison
Ganasekhar-gif
requested review from
larsoner,
drammock,
agramfort and
dengemann
as code owners
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
EOG Component Detection
Reference Issue:
Addresses #9002
What does this implement/fix?
This draft PR improves the ICA comparison example by:
Comparing multiple ICA algorithms: FastICA, Picard, Infomax, and Extended Infomax.
Evaluating performance on both clean and synthetically noisy MEG data.
Detecting and visualizing EOG-related components for each method.
Showing side-by-side component comparisons to enhance interpretability.
Displaying fit time per method for performance benchmarking.
Providing a more informative educational example (moving beyond just a "how-to").
Preview: Output Snapshots
Fastica method on clean data: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/03fbe1d3-d8ad-4349-96fa-f6743e42ff88
Fastica method on noisy data: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/59c86307-a9fe-4f2b-93d6-434f2131181e
EOG component comparison: https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a670261b-a32a-4da0-a25c-d8332e3924db
Additional Information:
This is a work-in-progress PR as encouraged by the maintainers. I'm looking for early feedback on:
Visual clarity of EOG component comparisons.
Whether to include more deterministic checks (e.g., random_state).
In addition, I have a couple of questions:
EOG Component Comparison:
The issue refers to comparing EOG components. Currently, I've selected the most likely EOG-related component based on each ICA method's output. Could you clarify what “the same” EOG component refers to in this context? Are you expecting comparisons based on a specific pre-determined EOG component or should this focus on the component detected by each algorithm?
Summary of Changes:
Slightly reworded the description for clarity.
Structured the PR content with bullet points to improve readability.
Reworded the EOG component question to avoid confusion.