We've updated our privacy policy.

michaelrepucci

michaelrepucci
Joined Jan 2015
michaelrepucci
Joined Jan 2015

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!