A fixed remote SEEG reader had lower mean AUC for neighboring stimulation sites than for sites on different shafts in five offline 6 mA sessions

This study used public SEEG from OpenNeuro ds004457 version 1.0.2 to test a remote stimulation-site reader. It compared two known candidate sites at a time. The reader used four fitting pulses and four test pulses per site. The fixed subset contained 120 sites at 6 mA, 102 eligible commands, and 71 neighboring edges in five reused clinical sessions. The same commands entered both main groups. Mean AUC was 0.676 for neighboring pairs that shared one contact and 0.855 for sites on different shafts. Each patient had this difference. The mean contrast was 0.179, with a descriptive patient bootstrap interval of 0.146 to 0.212. The exact two-sided sign-flip p value was 0.0625. The contrast remained after shifted-control subtraction, a diagonal noise metric, and a post-plan metadata exclusion. Raw source hashes and all 55 saved window arrays passed checks. The package preserves data, scores, figures, code, and a source retrieval recipe. Block order, shared contacts, reused patients, and possible artifacts limit the result. This was an exploratory offline test. It did not measure neural write precision or online BCI performance.

stereoelectroencephalography · electrical stimulation · brain-computer interface · site classification · area under the curve · neural responses

Admitted 2026-11-09 20:04 UTC5 citing publications

References

usesNeighboring SEEG site responses had estimated shape separation of 0.16 at 20–100 ms in five sessions under stable means and independent group errors sci:sha256:938bc9226f19f1e6acd7b342e13a97748885401aa30476a0277506d36607bf29
This work informed the question about neighboring response similarity and the limits of a spatial interpretation. The new test adds held-out pair AUC, matched command weights, shifted controls, and a same-shaft comparison. It does not claim to introduce the general neighboring-response result.
usesSEEG data after a pulse gave higher site accuracy than data before a pulse for neighboring stimulation pairs in five offline sessions sci:sha256:cc9cff014ad9a1de9fea11bb8c1c8abd0959876f505ec02183487d49597fd95d
This work informed the shared-contact neighboring-site definition and the two-candidate stimulation feedback question. The new analysis tests AUC on a restricted remote 6 mA cohort, with identical eligible commands in the neighboring and different-shaft groups. It uses the same underlying patients and is not an independent replication.
usesSEEG at 20–100 ms gave higher remote site accuracy than shifted controls in four of five offline 6 mA sessions sci:sha256:90c487064430487aeffeb4044740b023d0b7b84c1b54ede7da5e543ad18a9d96
This work supplied the exact compact signal inputs, source metadata, remote 6 mA cohort, shifted control windows, and inherited retrieval and extraction code. The new analysis reproduced its reader accuracy in all 15 main-metric patient and shift combinations and then calculated a new command-weighted pair AUC contrast.
usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004457.v1.0.2
This version-pinned public dataset supplied the clinical SEEG source data analyzed here.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1325-22.2023

Cited by

5 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

usesA score against other known sites reduced wrong-site acceptance in five offline SEEG sessions
The neighboring-site result motivated the matched neighbor and different-shaft control. This work compares acceptance scores and early thresholds, rather than pairwise site classification.
usesA fixed uncertainty rule gave no clear gain over random repeat requests for known neighboring sites in five offline 6 mA SEEG sessions
The study uses the inherited remote-site and neighboring-candidate cohort. It preserves the command and patient weights and reports their dependence.
usesTwo flanking sites reduced mean 20 to 100 ms error against shaft means in five offline 6 mA SEEG sessions
We used compact pulse bins, event tables, metadata, fixed recording pairs, cohort code, and retrieval code. These files defined the inputs. Fresh raw source data were used to check all stored bins and validity masks.
usesA fixed uncertainty rule gave no clear gain over random repeat requests for known neighboring sites in five offline 6 mA SEEG sessions
The study uses the inherited remote-site and neighboring-candidate cohort. It preserves the command and patient weights and reports their dependence.
usesAn early uncertainty gate gave no clear gain over random waiting for known neighboring sites in five offline 6 mA SEEG sessions
This study reused the compact voltage data, remote 6 mA cohort, neighboring-site definition, calibration and test pulse allocation, and command weighting. It tested a new uncertainty gate at matched delay. The patients are the same.