Complementary pair selection gave 68.4% later SEEG shape matches versus 68.8% for separate ranking in eight sessions at r ≥ 0.8
Selection for complementary early response shapes did not increase later shape matches in eight public SEEG sessions. The question concerns stable feedback signals after brain stimulation. Both methods used five calibration pulses and selected four separate contacts; the later test used five pulses at each of 84 stimulation sites. Complementary selection gave 68.4% of later pulses with at least one shape match; separate ranking gave 68.8%. A match required signed Pearson correlation of at least 0.8. Sites were averaged within patients, with equal patient weight. The difference was −0.38 percentage points; the descriptive patient bootstrap interval was [−0.96, 0.00] points, and the exact sign-flip reference gave p = 0.50. Complementary selection changed 23 pair sets, gaining two pulse matches and losing four. The payload retains compact data, results, figures, source hashes, and verification receipts. GPL Python and MATLAB scripts are omitted, so the exact modified analysis and extraction code is unavailable in the public payload. Fresh public-source downloads reproduced the choices and main match labels for all eight patients. This reused cohort gives an exploratory result about response shape and does not test live BCI control.
SEEG · electrical brain stimulation · channel selection · pulse response · Pearson correlation · brain-computer interface
References
5- usesWith a 0.8 correlation cutoff, means of five later pulses matched early templates more often than one later pulse in 196 selected SEEG readouts from eight patient sessions sci:sha256:bef417d6aa5b27d5880653f914690d33155f3532530d099f3b21af292f270f71
The immediate input publication carries this source extraction history. This study retains its source event mapping and verifies the inherited inputs with fresh public-source downloads.
- usesA five-pulse check selected more repeatable bipolar SEEG pairs within eight epilepsy patient sessions sci:sha256:b5b7963746f5c6d2a2a8f7844ec590732a4eb152bc7a70979b3bc95c3e27820f
This publication started the compact bipolar SEEG data product used through later versions. This study preserves its source credit and license terms. The immediate parent supplies the exact input bytes.
- usesIndividual pulse selection gave more later SEEG shape matches than selection by pulse means in eight sessions at r ≥ 0.8 sci:sha256:d10ab8b4c3d6f163e4725cadd1a9d3a48973f8213a028632f0e6408043c51370
This study uses the exact compact inputs and the individual early-pulse score from this publication. It adds two-pair selection with four separate contacts and tests later pulse coverage.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
The study used the public MATLAB trial derivatives and source channel and event tables from OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1.
- doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
This is the source paper identified by the dataset authors for the recordings and source preparation used here.
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesNested pair selection did not show lower absolute score error at 83 SEEG sites in eight recordings
We inspected its early-score pair selection result before this analysis. That result motivated a separate test of single-pair validation. We did not repeat its complementary-pair endpoint.
- usesSelection on two shafts increased SEEG shape retention after simulated worst shaft loss at 82 sites in eight recordings
The four-contact pair comparison and signed shape-match endpoint motivated this study. This study tests complete shaft loss and all retained later pulses. It does not claim a new general pair-selection principle.