Update references and documentation on threshold use

[JuliaKukulies]

Addresses #346 and #347.

Note that for #346, I have only changed the documentation now, but could also update the segmentation function with an optional input parameter to make the threshold inclusive. Thoughts?

Also, happy to get help on recent publications that I have missed. @freemansw1 maybe you are aware of additional ones for INCUS or from any CSU students that I could not find :)

• Have you followed our guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md?
• Have you self-reviewed your code and corrected any misspellings?
• Have you written documentation that is easy to understand?
• Have you written descriptive commit messages?
• Have you formatted your code using black?
• Have all tests passed in your local clone?
• Have you kept your pull request small and limited so that it is easy to review?
• Have the newest changes from this branch been merged?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (5f096e3) 56.68% compared to head (c6deec9) 56.70%.
Report is 13 commits behind head on RC_v1.5.x.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##           RC_v1.5.x     #365      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      56.68%   56.70%   +0.02%     
=============================================
  Files             19       19              
  Lines           3426     3428       +2     
=============================================
+ Hits            1942     1944       +2     
  Misses          1484     1484              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	56.70% <ø> (+0.02%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[snilsn]

Looks good, @JuliaKukulies, just one minor thought

[snilsn]

Ok great, approving this now @JuliaKukulies.

If we wanted to include the option to be inclusive with the threshold for segmentation, would we also include the option to be exclusive for feature detection? Might otherwise cause confusion if an option isn't available in both functions.

[harrietgilmour]

All looks good to me - documentation on thresholds is now much clearer :)

[JuliaKukulies]

Ok great, approving this now @JuliaKukulies.

If we wanted to include the option to be inclusive with the threshold for segmentation, would we also include the option to be exclusive for feature detection? Might otherwise cause confusion if an option isn't available in both functions.

Hm yes, good point. However, I find it also confusing when the options exist for both but in different directions. I feel that this needs some further discussion so I will not include it in this PR/release. Are you OK with that @freemansw1 @w-k-jones ?

[JuliaKukulies]

Thanks for reviewing this @snilsn and @harrietgilmour !

[freemansw1]

I have a few minor comments, but am overall very happy! Thanks for doing this!

[JuliaKukulies]

I am merging this now and creating an issue for the future implementation of optional treatment of threshold values.