sciscape Publications
← All publications

Single-channel SEEG predicted working-memory errors above chance in 12 patients, but the LMFG–RMTG advantage was not significant after correction

We tested whether single stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) channels in the left middle frontal gyrus (LMFG) and right middle temporal gyrus (RMTG) predict a later working-memory (WM) error better than channels in the right middle frontal gyrus (RMFG) and left middle temporal gyrus (LMTG), as a decoding consequence of the source paper’s report that LMFG and RMTG support WM. We analyzed 138 channels in 12 patients from OpenNeuro ds006136, using log band power (4–150 Hz, five bands) in encoding and delay windows, shrinkage linear discriminant analysis, and stratified five-fold cross-validation with five repeats. Across all channels, the mean of patient means was AUC 0.553; 10 of 12 patients had AUC above 0.5 (sign-flip p = 0.0034). LMFG+RMTG exceeded RMFG+LMTG by 0.034 AUC in 7 of 9 patients (exact sign-flip p = 0.047; within-patient label-permutation p = 0.056). This p-value was not corrected for five contrasts; after Holm correction, no contrast was significant. Left minus right was +0.008 (p = 0.81), and frontal minus temporal was +0.037 (p = 0.082). The small LMFG+RMTG advantage cannot be separated from a frontal-over-temporal effect, because LMTG had the lowest regional AUC and LMFG and RMFG were both sampled in only one patient. These results do not support a strong lateralized difference in error read-out. The analysis was offline, within-session, and single-channel; it used processed bipolar trials after artifact rejection by the dataset authors, 12 patients, one feature set, and one classifier.

working memory · stereoelectroencephalography · error decoding · single-channel classification · linear discriminant analysis · cross-validation · OpenNeuro

Admitted 0 citing publications

References

6
  1. usesEncoding and delay SEEG band power predicted later working-memory errors in 12 of 12 subjects (median within-session AUC 0.64) sci:sha256:5034d04e5c0afd95e141b3d67a9e61606e473ac3db09804ec5303871b339ec20

    Same task, labels and band-power error decoding approach on ds006136; we apply it per region.

  2. supportsMatched-count MTG and MFG SEEG channels did not differ significantly in working-memory error prediction sci:sha256:1f1d13d0631f58a1a6db0271090934a9e6895b76fc72b1450aca585eec4177f8

    We also find no clear MTG vs MFG difference (MFG - MTG +0.037, p = 0.08) with a different single-channel design.

  3. supportsOne SEEG contact captured most cross-patient error-prediction AUC in 13 working-memory sessions sci:sha256:1a63362b2ab9648091d345010b582ec0660d263c3e152c5a82d058b645670626

    Consistent: single contacts carry error information and region at equal count gives no clear difference.

  4. supportsIn 10 Patients, Equal-Count SEEG Decoding Found No Significant Difference Between Temporal and Frontal Contacts for Working-Memory Errors sci:sha256:3fe41ea995cbd07cb5f8a2ea0abf7bd00cd192562492ffb9cf908c9ce49fc7d5

    Consistent: temporal and frontal contacts do not differ significantly in error prediction.

  5. usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006136.v1.0.1

    The analysis used processed bipolar SEEG and task-performance files from OpenNeuro ds006136 snapshot 1.0.1.

  6. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.121718

Cited by

0 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

No incoming citations on Sciscape.