Equal name group weights changed fewer top beta strength nodes than a change of one minute in 19 selected SEEG records

We tested how equal contact name group weights change the strongest beta network nodes. We used two adjacent minutes from each of 19 selected records in OpenNeuro ds003876 version 1.0.2. Nodes were adjacent contact differences. Edges joined different name groups. The score was mean squared imaginary coherency from 13 to less than 30 Hz. At the top 10 percent, changing weights replaced 11.37 percent of nodes on average. Moving one minute replaced 61.09 percent with channel mean strength. The mean paired difference was minus 49.71 percentage points. Its descriptive 95 percent patient bootstrap interval was minus 57.42 to minus 41.74 percentage points. Weighting change was smaller in all 19 patients. A proof relates the strength difference to group size covariance. Equal group strength is unchanged by complete group replication when edges stay fixed. All 19 Fourier inputs were rebuilt from public bytes. Full precision replay matched all 228 selected sets. The package preserves code, source pins, compact inputs, patient results, proofs, figures, and reproduction commands. Name groups are not verified brain regions. The study does not test clinical outcomes or separate biological change from estimation error.

SEEG · intracranial EEG · electrode sampling · network strength · imaginary coherency · group weighting · node turnover

Admitted 2026-11-09 18:31 UTC2 citing publications

References

usesThe common-reference-invariant beta component contributed more to agreement in 19 adjacent-minute SEEG records sci:sha256:f0d64ceacebda1587fbb8cf20d8bc531c139cbd98608e6166f45e2a4738cfa1d
Used its upstream Fourier inputs and extraction provenance through the immediate input publication fcafc9f0-c4f2-4171-8c91-883e8db87300. This reuse does not add new patients.
usesReference choice reduced mean 80 to 150 Hz rank agreement more than time change in 19 public SEEG records sci:sha256:16d6a5e5126b007f6f6be4f042d829df32ccd751f41bcfda4c9b9a3f5a80fce2
Used the EDF decoding helper attributed to this publication, through the immediate input package. It supports contact mapping, calibration, byte range decoding, and time grid checks.
usesDebiased squared weighted phase lag index gave mean Dice overlap of 0.286 for top 10% beta graphs across adjacent minutes in 19 SEEG records sci:sha256:ac7f08279066f536c45ae3d50245c37cd54392cfb4c270e3fac6161ec52e7fe7
Read its beta graph overlap results before the local plan. They informed the adjacent minute comparison. The present study computes new node strength and selected node endpoints.
usesSample rank forced 92.8 percent of unrestricted complex canonical beta coherence scores to one in selected 20-second SEEG samples from 19 patients sci:sha256:32fd9b2dcef61781cc6d5987c2db0808052487e232705a6208abd3c87ce55a3c
Reused all 19 Fourier archives, source pins, metadata, contact quality records, raw examples, and retrieval code. Computed new beta edge strengths, weighting comparisons, and selected node sets. These are the same patients.
usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds003876.v1.0.2
The analyzed recordings and metadata came from OpenNeuro ds003876 version 1.0.2.
doi:10.1162/netn_a_00131
doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2004.04.029
doi:10.1101/2021.10.15.464594
doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00901-w

Cited by

2 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

usesEqual name group reference weights reduced mean beta power change after simulated alternate contact loss in two minutes from each of 19 SEEG records
Its equal name group weighting result for beta network strength helped define the new question. Here the weights define a common reference, and the endpoint is power change after within group contact loss. We do not reuse its outcome estimates as new observations.
usesBeta coupling gave a mean AUC of 0.481 for source seizure onset marks within name groups in 19 public SEEG records
We used its prior method context for equal remote name group weights. The present edge score, exclusions, and source mark endpoint differ. We do not claim an independent cohort replication.