Skip to content

[JOSS] terms in Figure 2 #31

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
djmannion opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

[JOSS] terms in Figure 2 #31

djmannion opened this issue Feb 8, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@djmannion
Copy link

openjournals/joss-reviews#6269

In Figure 2, the 'vertical traversal' is shown as varying in 'SITE' but described as "across multiple sequences for a given subject". Maybe I am just misinterpreting, but should 'SITE' be 'SEQUENCE'?

@sinhaharsh
Copy link
Collaborator

Regarding Figure 2, the vertical traversal shown is across sequences, namely T1w, DWI, fMRI, T2w. The purpose of this figure is to demonstrate that each site uses a specific acquisition protocol for collecting MR scans. This protocol contains several sequences, each of which has multiple parameters. The panels in the figure represent the interface that appears on the scanner during acquisition.

It's important to note that the direction for the site should be in the Z-direction (which is into the page). As you can see from the figure, the front panels display SITE 1, while the back panels display SITE 2.

However, the direction for the site has been omitted for the sake of brevity. I hope this clarifies things for you. Please let me know if you require any additional information. I can add the direction for site if you think it would be helpful.

@djmannion
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the explanation - I had interpreted the panels as the vertical traversal (like how the panels are the horizontal traversal), not the sequences within each panel. Maybe the 'vertical traversal' arrow could start at the top the T1w box and end at the bottom of the T2w box rather than encompassing all the panels. I'll leave it to your judgement.

@raamana
Copy link
Contributor

raamana commented Feb 9, 2024

thanks Damien - you're not wrong in interpreting that way - given we were too close to the project, we didn't see that confusion can arise. We will revise the figure to be more unambiguous and self-explanatory

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants