Five pulses gave higher mean later site ranks than one pulse in seven offline SEEG sessions
This study tests whether five calibration pulses improve stimulation-site choice over one pulse. The test uses five separate later pulses at each site. Public OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1 supplied seven eligible patient sessions. The analysis includes 20 candidate groups, 57 sites, and 216 target contexts. At 20 to 500 ms, the mean later response rank rose from 0.604 to 0.722. The mean gain was 0.118 on a scale from 0 to 1. The 95% patient bootstrap interval was 0.028 to 0.189. The exact paired patient sign-flip p value was 0.0625. Six of seven patients had a gain. The before-pulse control also had a positive mean change. No group finished calibration at all sites before test pulses started at any site. The results do not establish an optimal budget or a prospective brain-interface benefit. The package preserves pulse products, every site choice, three figures, source metadata, and pinned source hashes. GPL-licensed source code and retrieval scripts are omitted from the SCI payload. An independent check tested all scores and choices. A fresh complete source rebuild for one patient matched all 22 matrices before packaging; the extraction implementation is not included in the SCI payload.
SEEG · electrical stimulation · site selection · calibration · pulse budget · patient bootstrap
References
4- usesAt 20 to 500 ms, a rule for one pulse accepted all five later SEEG responses at 53.4 percent on average in eight epilepsy patients sci:sha256:b8a2cfb7de42860d8b0589b2866a537d946dc0522832eea0206192f24e2b3e20
This study uses all 26 preserved data files from this publication. These files give exact single-pulse products and metadata for eight patients. It also uses four source retrieval and metadata scripts. The new analysis compares one and five calibration pulses on separate later test pulses.
- usesFive-pulse target fraction selection did not show a clear gain over energy selection within stimulation shafts in seven offline SEEG sessions sci:sha256:a26c5ceb2ffc9d324c3d13312cdccbd47e2c669b827ba0cbb0782b8fcec0c0fe
This study reuses the candidate-group design and common target panels from this publication. It confirms all 20 groups. The new question compares pulse budgets rather than target-fraction and energy rules at a fixed budget. It uses the same cohort and is not an independent replication.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
This analysis uses processed SEEG voltage derivatives and metadata from OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1.
- doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesEnergy shared across four pulses gave no clear offline site-rank gain over total energy in five SEEG sessions at 100 to 500 ms
Its site-rank endpoint and established distinct-pulse energy identity informed the question and internal plan. The current study uses another dataset, four fit pulses, and a top-20% site set. It directly compares cross selection with total energy selection.
- usesPulse time and earlier fit labels gave 98.6 percent site accuracy in 97 offline SEEG tasks from eight patients
This related study in ds004696 reported overlapping calibration and test times in its 20 site-choice groups. We use that result as prior context and limit the novelty claim. Our study tests a different endpoint in the exact 97-task site reader benchmark.