Early RMS did not lower mean late SEEG forecast error in fixed linear models with five calibration pulses per site in eight patient sessions
We tested a fast voltage forecast for a brain-computer interface that writes to the brain. The source was public SEEG data from OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1. We used eight patient sessions, 86 stimulation sites, and 886 bipolar readout pairs. The first five good pulses at each site set a fixed model. The final five tested it. Models used only calibration sets that were complete before the current site model was fixed. The target was centered voltage RMS at 100–500 ms. Adding RMS at 20–100 ms to pre-pulse RMS increased mean squared log-RMS error by 1.55%. The 95% patient bootstrap interval for error reduction was -6.50% to 1.67%. Error was lower in 5 of 8 patients. This test did not establish a mean benefit from the early feature. The matched pre-pulse check gave a descriptive 4.30% mean error reduction. The package supplies matched background data, exact trial products, all forecasts, source checks, code, and figures. The result applies to these fixed models and clinical sessions. It does not establish the effect of stimulation or test an online controller.
stereoelectroencephalography · SEEG · voltage forecast · brain-computer interface · RMS · calibration · patient bootstrap
References
4- usesA five-pulse check selected more repeatable bipolar SEEG pairs within eight epilepsy patient sessions sci:sha256:b5b7963746f5c6d2a2a8f7844ec590732a4eb152bc7a70979b3bc95c3e27820f
We used its adjacent bipolar readout definitions, source extraction design, and calibration shape check.
- usesA five-pulse test did not establish lower SEEG size prediction error from pre-pulse RMS in eight patient sessions sci:sha256:947fe7aa6e242e0f9e723e54cb14b472f7f801ecbaac8501e809356a1e6953c5
We used its checked five-window trial products and pulse mapping to test a separate late target and background windows.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
The analysis used public trial voltage from OpenNeuro ds004696, version 1.0.1.
- doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
Cited by
3 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesMean SEEG forecast gains fell from 14.1 to 5.6 percent when whole shafts were excluded in five sessions
Its early-versus-late response-size test helped define the question and the need for local comparison rules. Its dataset and outcome differ from this test.
- usesEarly RMS lowered late SEEG forecast error beyond pre-pulse RMS in linear models with five calibration pulses per condition in eight STReEF patients
This study repeats the early-versus-late RMS question and five-calibration-pulse comparison in another public SEEG dataset. Source settings, sample selection, model timing, and control windows differ. The earlier negative outcome is not contradicted for its tested scope.
- usesA shared early response update gave no clear 100–500 ms SEEG forecast gain after five calibration pulses in eight sessions
The early RMS forecast result informed the question and the decision to include a pre-pulse control. This study tests centered later voltage shape with a shared signed projection coefficient, rather than RMS size.