I’ve tested all possible combinations of parameters, and it appears the issue currently lies with the --image_target parameter. In the first preprocess_bold command, the --image_target parameter uses the setting _image_target : cifti from batch.txt. In the second preprocess_bold command, the --image_target parameter uses --image_target=“nifti”. It is precisely these two differences that cause the first command to run correctly while the second command encounters an error.
In short:
--image_target="nifti" [×]
--image_target="cifti" [√]
Unfortunately, that’s not the case. I modified the parameter naming as you suggested, and it’s now --hcp_nifti_tail=“_hp0_clean”. However, it still throws an error. The error message is as follows:
=========================================
Execution error! Processing failed!
Please check arguments and/or try running the command in Matlab or Octave directly.
The exact error reported:
-----------------------------------------
Error identifier:
Error message: reshape: SIZE is not divisible by the product of known dimensions (= 179776)
Error stack: /opt/qunex/matlab/qx_mri/img/@nimage/nimage.m -> image2D [line: 718]
/opt/qunex/matlab/qx_mri/img/@nimage/img_embed_stats.m -> img_embed_stats [line: 36]
/opt/qunex/matlab/qx_mri/img/@nimage/img_save_nifti.m -> img_save_nifti [line: 36]
/opt/qunex/matlab/qx_mri/img/@nimage/nimage.m -> img_saveimage [line: 542]
/opt/qunex/matlab/qx_mri/fc/fc_preprocess.m -> fc_preprocess [line: 1037]
Additionally, on the QuNex documentation homepage, neither of these parameters appears to have the hcp_ prefix. Is _hcp_cifti_tail only used in the default parameters within batch.txt?
Is this the correct template? I am asking because I am unable to reproduce this with multiple datasets except yours, suggesting that this is some kind of a data issue.
2/ You can try setting
--hcp_nifti_tail="" \
--hcp_cifti_tail="_Atlas" \
And then rerun from map_hcp_data to preprocess_bold. This will use non ICAFixed data, maybe something weird happened during denoising.
Is there a need for you to use nifti data here and not cifti?
Great. I will also ask one of my colleagues to take a look at this and see if he spots something that is off. Unfortunately, I am able to reproduce this only with your data and there it seems like a some kind of a data missmatch:
SIZE is not divisible by the product of known dimensions (= 179776)
I am marking this as RESOLVED since it looks like a data issue and we were unable to reproduce the behavior on any other dataset. If this resurfaces, we will reopen this and dig deeper.