[ENH] Add audio/video recordings to behavioral experiments

[bendichter]

fix #1771

[effigies]

Overall this makes sense to me. It would be good to get some feedback from contributors to related BEPs, such as eye-tracking (20), motion (29), stimuli (44) and physio (45). Even if this PR doesn't propose adding this as an associated file to those data types, the potential is there and it's worth getting opinions and identifying potential conflicts.

cc @bids-standard/bep029 @bids-standard/bep044
cc @mszinte @julia-pfarr @oesteban (BEP020)
cc @m-miedema @smoia @SouravKulkarni (?) (BEP045)

[effigies]

This is a substantial change in how much extensions, entities and suffixes can be reordered. I talked with @yarikoptic yesterday and I think this is an interesting future direction, but something that does not require any changes at the moment would be:

Suggested change

	"sub-01_ses-01_task-freeplay_run-01_video": {
	"split-001.mp4": "",
	"split-002.mp4": "",
	"split-003.mp4": "",
	},
	"sub-01_ses-01_task-freeplay_run-01_split-001_video.mp4": "",
	"sub-01_ses-01_task-freeplay_run-01_split-002_video.mp4": "",
	"sub-01_ses-01_task-freeplay_run-01_split-003_video.mp4": "",

[bendichter]

@yarikoptic 's concern here was that if we have hundreds or even thousands of video files this would get cumbersome. @talmo also preferred the subdirectory approach.

From my perspective, my philosophy is to only propose changes to the standard for expressibility or performance and this a large proposed change that seems merely for convenience, not expressibility or performance (correct me if I am wrong), so I am fine with reverting to the standard split organization (i.e. no subdirectory).

[effigies]

I see I missed this discussion, apologies for jumping in late. I unresolved this so others can see this conversation, but reading through the previous discussion I think there's an 80/20 split here where it's better to work within the current BIDS constraints and then separately push for a generalization to _<suffix>/split-<label>.<ext> if that becomes a practical problem for people.

I would say it's a BEP-level change that would require design for the schema and validator and would significantly slow down this proposal to include it here.

[bendichter]

Agreed

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.86%. Comparing base (7c06228) to head (aead0a4).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #2231   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.86%   82.86%           
=======================================
  Files          20       20           
  Lines        1669     1669           
=======================================
  Hits         1383     1383           
  Misses        286      286           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.