Simple and correct way to put labels on topoplot with 64 channels with predefined data

[vladdez]

There should be some zero-brainer way to call labels. Currently when is simply do this, result is not what is expected:

_labels_64 = [
            "Fp1", "AF7", "AF3", "F1", "F3", "F5", "F7", "FT7", "FC5", "FC3", "FC1",
            "C1", "C3", "C5", "T7", "TP7", "CP5", "CP3", "CP1", "P1", "P3", "P5", "P7", "P9",
            "PO7", "PO3", "O1", "Iz", "Oz", "POz", "Pz", "CPz", "Fpz", "Fp2", "AF8", "AF4",
            "AFz", "Fz", "F2", "F4", "F6", "F8", "FT8", "FC6", "FC4", "FC2", "FCz", "Cz",
            "C2", "C4", "C6", "T8", "TP8", "CP6", "CP4", "CP2", "P2", "P4", "P6", "P8",
            "P10", "PO8", "PO4", "O2",
        ]
pos = TopoPlots.labels2positions(_labels_64)

dat, positions = TopoPlots.example_data()
tp = 340
vec_estimate = dat[:, tp, 1]

plot_topoplot(
    vec_estimate;
    labels = _labels_64,
    positions = pos,
    visual = (; label_text = true, label_scatter = false),
    axis = (; xlabel = "Time point: $tp"),
)

[behinger]

the example data are not 10/20

[vladdez]

What is that then? No information about that in docstrings

[behinger]

it is a custom montage from brainproducts, there are no labels

[vladdez]

why not to

• use standard montage as example
• generate these labels somehow
  I think situation when you cannot correctly put labels on example data is suboptimal and leads to a lot of confusion

[behinger]

You are welcome to make a PR with 10/20 example data to topoplots.jl. maybe it is better, but I don't think it is worth the effort.

I'm not really sure what problem it addresses?