Skip to content
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

gdist_local_connectivity asymmetric #80

Closed
jescab01 opened this issue Apr 5, 2024 · 5 comments
Closed

gdist_local_connectivity asymmetric #80

jescab01 opened this issue Apr 5, 2024 · 5 comments

Comments

@jescab01
Copy link

jescab01 commented Apr 5, 2024

Dear all,

I am using the tvb-gdist package to compute the local_connectivity over a mesh that I created. The algorithm works fine and creates the sparse matrices of local connectivity. However, I have observed that the eventual matrix is not symmetrical.

I am computing the local connectivity using:

cx = cortex.Cortex.from_file(source_file="cortical_surface.zip", region_mapping_file="region_mapping.txt", local_connectivity_file=None)

cx.local_connectivity = local_connectivity.LocalConnectivity(cutoff=40.0, surface=cx.region_mapping_data.surface, equation=equations.Gaussian(parameters=dict(amp=1, sigma=1, midpoint=0, offset=0)))

Do you know how could that be the case? I have tested with two meshes of 8k and 17k vertices. I attach the data.zip with the 8k mesh (cortical_surface.zip and region_mapping.txt) and the generated sparse matrix (local_connectivity-amp1sig1.mat).

Note: the surface is an open mesh that covers only cortical regions, the rest of the mesh (mostly subcortical) was removed.

Thanks in advance,

@jescab01
Copy link
Author

jescab01 commented Apr 10, 2024

Update: I have also tried to compute the local connectivity with a closed (spherical) surface, and the asymmetry is still there.

@liadomide
Copy link
Member

Hi @jescab01
Have you seen this older comment about asymmetry #21 (comment) ?
Could it be the same situation in your case also ?

@jescab01
Copy link
Author

Hi @liadomide,

Thanks for the link, I had not read it.

Actually, the differences are relatively small, so I guess they can be due to a limited precision in the computation.

Thanks again,

@liadomide
Copy link
Member

@jescab01 Thanks for testing and looking into this youself!
Is then ok if we close this issue?

@jescab01
Copy link
Author

Yes, thank you.

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

2 participants