Last week, I was working on the parametrizing tests for SourceEstimates with tfr_morlet, and making sure the tests are also passed for all possible different functional arguments. Overall this worked quite smoothly for most parameters. In fact, I was already able to start implementing the same procedure for tfr_multitaper. Anyhow, for tfr_multitaper there is no reference function as for tfr_morlet, so tests for tfr_multitaper are for now basically just running the function and checking that everything is in the right place.
However, some of the parameters still were causing problems. By far the most time this week was spent to work on tfr_morlet processing data from 'vector' representations (i.e. instead of one virtual "sensor" in source space, there are 3 virtual "sensors" created, with each one representating one directional activation axis. Besides adding a further dimension (which was no big problem to adapt to), the data fields consistently showed a slight difference (of about 2-4%).
After noticing that for this case, the results are theoretically not expected to be the same for the two procedures taken in the functions, I'll have to find a case where a comparison is possible between the two.
So this is one thing i'm going to do the following week. But mainly, I'm going to continue covering cases for the tfr_multitaper function, as well as starting with the last function, tfr_stockwell.
Another think to possibly look at now is a further option of the functions, which is to additionally return the inter-trial coherence of the time-frequency transforms.