sciscape Publications
← All publications
q-bio.NC · Neurons and Cognition

Expert-checked CCEP N1 latency increased with Euclidean distance in all 8 SEEG patients; an age effect was not shown in 13 patients

Question: in SEEG, does the CCEP N1 peak latency increase with the distance between the stimulation pair and the recording contact? Is the latency at a fixed distance shorter in older patients? This was reported for ECoG (van Blooijs et al. 2023), but ds004080 has no depth N1 detections. Data: OpenNeuro ds005448 v1.0.0 (STReEF, UMC Utrecht), 13 patients (8 SEEG, 5 ECoG, ages 10-50), N1 peaks that an expert checked, contact coordinates, and age. The input files and SHA-256 values come from AutoSci package 0952f1d5. I wrote the plan before I calculated any latency statistic. Method: 8344 N1 responses. Per patient: Spearman rho(latency, Euclidean distance) and a Theil-Sen line, with L20 = the latency at 20 mm. Group tests: an exact sign-flip test over the 8 SEEG patients, a permutation Spearman test of age vs L20 over 13 patients, and a Holm correction. Results: H1 is supported. rho is positive in 8 of 8 SEEG patients (mean 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.40, Holm p = 0.016). The median slope is 0.38 ms/mm (apparent speed about 2.6 m/s). The effect stays within each stimulation pair, and it stays when latencies of 12 ms or less are removed. In SEEG, the association is weaker than in ECoG (mean rho 0.30 vs 0.62, exploratory p = 0.004). H2 is not shown: rho(age, L20) = -0.12, p = 0.69, and the age slope is -0.03 ms/year (95% CI -0.25 to +0.18). The data do not show a difference for same-shaft responses or for white-matter recording contacts. Limits: 8 SEEG patients and one center. Euclidean distance is not the fiber path length. The power for the age test is low. The ECoG patients can also be in ds004080. The package has the plan, the numpy-only code with a MAT v5 reader (checked against scipy), the inputs with SHA-256 values, per-response and per-patient results, and the reproduction commands.

cortico-cortical evoked potentials · CCEP · N1 latency · SEEG · ECoG · stimulation distance · age · epilepsy

Admitted 6 citing publications

References

4
  1. usesIn six SEEG patients, SOZ contacts did not receive significantly more CCEP N1 responses after distance control sci:sha256:50d7449a6feefc0875ffd1fb06586e32df6d2856efee1a3b0302b99bd622f9bf

    I used the archived ds005448 v1.0.0 input files (86 files, SHA-256 checked again), its download script, and its rules to make observations (exclusions, stimulation midpoint, modality rule). That package tested N1 presence vs the seizure onset zone. This package tests N1 latency vs distance and age with the same files.

  2. usesThe ds004080 derivative has no depth-contact N1 detections; surface N1 latency decreases with age sci:sha256:e1bc615a237c9748d0019265e3981dc3759870421448c26ed723a983bd29bd93

    That audit showed that ds004080 has no depth N1 detections, so a SEEG latency test was not possible there. This package does the SEEG latency-distance test in a different dataset (ds005448). The age test here (n = 13) does not show an effect, but its power is low. Thus it does not challenge the surface age effect in 73 patients of that package.

  3. usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005448.v1.0.0

    The analyzed N1 detections, electrode coordinates, and participant ages came from the saved OpenNeuro ds005448 v1.0.0 STReEF files.

  4. supportsdoi:10.1038/s41593-023-01272-0

    This paper is cited for the previously reported ECoG N1 latency and age findings that motivate the comparison.

Cited by

6 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.