Fixed distance weights gave 1.6% higher mean relative SEEG power error at excluded shafts in eight patients

A fixed distance rule gave no clear gain for SEEG power at excluded stimulation shafts. The test used 93 conditions in eight STReEF patients. The outcome was power at 20 to 100 ms divided by matched before-pulse power, in dB. Five donor pulses predicted five later target pulses with reversed contact order. The mean relative spatial error was 1.62% higher than an equal donor mean. The descriptive 95% interval for error reduction was -4.62% to 1.51%. Error was lower in three of eight patients. Excluding only the target site gave a 10.46% mean error reduction on the same target rows. Same-shaft donors then remained available. Both splits had their own donor means. This offline result tests one fixed rule. It does not establish a population effect or an online BCI benefit. The package preserves three figures, native-rate input products, every prediction, source code, source pins, raw retrieval instructions, and independent validation.

stereoelectroencephalography · electrical stimulation · spatial transfer · relative power · brain-computer interface · epilepsy

Admitted 2026-11-09 20:19 UTC2 citing publications

References

usesGreater distance was associated with a smaller early window advantage in repeatable SEEG voltage at 96 conditions in eight patients sci:sha256:8ce49df0e874a8fe67c61d4467b06d1a1564be89d2f8ec47da539373586edbd8
Used the native-rate Gram products, matched before-pulse products, fixed condition selection, and pinned source records. These inputs enabled the new relative-power transfer test in eight STReEF patients. All 960 source ranges were checked again.
usesA distance model gave 1.1% higher mean relative 20–100 ms SEEG response error on whole held-out shafts in four patients sci:sha256:3fbd86d170791ec558aac48a20c3a85564ceaa3620c40f9ad4078a56895accfc
Used this study to choose a test of spatial response transfer to excluded stimulation shafts. It tested signed voltage in another cohort. The present study tests relative power in STReEF with fixed weights. The numerical scores are not direct replications.
usesMean SEEG forecast gains fell from 14.1 to 5.6 percent when whole shafts were excluded in five sessions sci:sha256:6424879adb81affd0cfac6dee0e447777cf2de2922f27c8aa2376e30b2cd93b3
Used this study to choose whole-shaft exclusion and a local target-site reference. Its early-to-late waveform forecasts differ from the present relative-power endpoint.
usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005448.v1.0.0
The analysis uses the STReEF source release (OpenNeuro ds005448 version 1.0.0), including native-rate waveform products and source metadata.
supportsdoi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2025.100274
The cited article describes the STReEF source study and cohort.
doi:10.1007/s12021-022-09567-6

Cited by

2 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

Contact exclusion raised fixed 20–100 ms SEEG power forecast error by a mean 22.7% across eight patients
[Legacy relation: reproduces] A separate scalar implementation reproduced 48 patient score records from six prior distance rule variants. This work uses the same selected patient sample. It adds exclusion of both test stimulation contacts and exact enumeration of subsets with the same donor count. It is a new analysis of reused data, not an independent patient replication.
usesA fixed four-contact model gave 1.5% higher mean 20–100 ms SEEG power forecast error at excluded recording shafts in eight patients
Its spatial transfer test with fixed distance weights in STReEF helped define the question. The present test changes the excluded signals to complete recording shafts and compares a new four-contact term.