Thank you for moving the dialog to the forum.
I realized that I have changed the name of the tool a couple of times since the initial upload. The tool that includes a checker can be found at: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/46420-blockedfsignalrasterview
The source code can be found on GitHub: https://github.com/DennisDean/SignalRasterView
If you send me a link to the file, I can take a quick look.
I downloaded the source code for SignalRasterView and its checker found no problems with the header or signal headers. Please find a link to the EDF file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g9hzpqkrlf9hkyp/TN001P119S2%20-%20No%2C%20PHI_20140508T132900_EvokeTaskERP.EDF?dl=0
Hi Michael, I believe that I sent an Email to your personal account. Posting here also; just in case I sent to the wrong address.
From the downloaded file: I noticed that the
reserve_1 header entry contains the string ‘EDF+C’. If the EDF has EDF+ components, I wouldn't expect the MATLAB programs I wrote to always work. I believe you mentioned using EDF Browser. I wonder if EDF+ type components were added.
Given that the code runs with NSRR files, I suspect a data driven issue. I would encourage you to review the run in Debug mode to further clarify.
You can email me directly if you would like to discuss further. My experience with working with other researchers is that tweaks are sometimes necessary when working with non-NSRR datasets.
I did reply (eventually). Here's the text of that email.
Unfortunately, my personal email is definitely not the quicker path, as you now see. I'm replying from my work email, which would be the fastest way (other than online forums) to get in touch in the future.
The EDF file I provided is, indeed, an EDF+ file. It was created with a program that utilizes EDFlib (http://www.teuniz.net/edflib/), so it's not so surprising that it is readable by EDFbrowser (http://www.teuniz.net/edfbrowser/), as those are written by the same author. It contains ERP data, which is why it needed to be EDF+ format.
Full disclosure: I was attempting to use your software not specifically for its intended purpose, but really just to confirm that the EDF file was readable, as another business contact had difficulty reading it with their proprietary software. I've since been able to confirm, using BlockEdfLoad and other software, that the EDF file is properly formatted, and that the problem this business contact had was with their software. I just figured you'd appreciate the feedback – I know how hard it can be to not have sufficient testing of software I develop – but I now understand that what I was trying to do simply wasn't a requirement of your software.
I do encourage you to add support for EDF+ files. As I'm sure you know, EDF+ is totally backwards compatible (http://www.edfplus.info/). That is, any EDF reader/writer can read EDF+ files, and the EDF+ standard is now almost 13 years old, which makes the EDF standard almost archaic at 23 years of age. Moreover, EDF+ was specifically designed to allow annotations of the type that might come up in sleep stage scoring.
Good luck with future development and thank you for the help!