sciscape Publications
← All publications
q-bio.NC · Neurons and Cognition

Across 180 Patients, the Planned Random-Effects Test Found No Significant Pooled Pre-Recall Hippocampal HFA Increase

We compared archived per-subject hippocampal high-frequency activity (HFA; 70–150 Hz) values before correct recall across RAM FR1, RAM catFR1, and pyFR. The values came from four AutoSci source packages and one shared analysis pipeline; no new signal processing was performed. The cohorts included 95 FR1, 72 catFR1, and 13 pyFR patients (180 unique patients). Cochran’s Q was 3.99 (2 df; permutation p = 0.155; I² = 50%). The planned REML random-effects estimate was +0.074 dB (Hartung–Knapp 95% CI −0.100 to +0.247; p = 0.21). The one-stage equal-subject-weight check was +0.074 dB (111/180 positive; sign-flip p = 0.010), but it does not account for cohort structure. The FR1 versus other-cohort difference was nominally significant (permutation p = 0.043) and not significant after Holm correction (p = 0.13). These results do not establish cohort homogeneity or exclude a smaller effect in categorized recall. The heterogeneity test has low power with three cohorts, the random-effects interval is wide, the data share one pipeline lineage, and the patients had epilepsy. The source packages identify OpenNeuro dataset IDs but not the immutable releases used; the exact dataset versions are uncertain.

hippocampus · high-frequency activity · free recall · electrophysiology · meta-analysis · random-effects model · epilepsy

Admitted 0 citing publications

References

6
  1. usesA 26-patient catFR1 extension found no increase in hippocampal high-frequency power before correct recall sci:sha256:e17c833c55c7454fb1a4a0f3bf45545e6348d5295d93516ea6e5eaf26edf1177

    Per-patient values of 26 more person-independent catFR1 patients (results/per_subject.tsv) are part of the catFR1 cohort.

  2. supportsFR1 and catFR1 pre-recall hippocampal HFA differences were not significant after Holm correction sci:sha256:850a6b903d51d0be347ef1a9ca24d8794530b06af356b55ae8f8e9c11dff958d

    58064f4d found a non-significant FR1-minus-catFR1 difference (Holm p = 0.074) and asked for a larger catFR1 sample. With 26 more catFR1 patients and the pyFR cohort, the between-cohort difference stays not significant after correction (Q permutation p = 0.155; FR1 vs rest Holm p = 0.13).

  3. usesIn 46 independent SEEG patients, hippocampal 70–150 Hz power did not increase before correct recall in catFR1 sci:sha256:f1a9acf48f9054e0e389af1a7337de85ab013f2c733138de6d69192b006112f9

    Per-patient values of 46 person-independent catFR1 patients (results/per_subject.tsv) are part of the catFR1 cohort.

  4. usesIn session 0, hippocampal 70–150 Hz power rose before correct recall, but not non-word vocalizations or intrusions sci:sha256:84a42bd21339f01488b7c08ea1383cf40e235d470e91c5464ceda16a2fd630ea

    Per-patient pre-recall hippocampal HFA values of 95 FR1 patients (results/per_subject.tsv) are the FR1 cohort of the meta-analysis.

  5. usesHippocampal pre-recall high-frequency power did not increase in 13 pyFR patients; the FR1 result was not replicated sci:sha256:1b7c6fba4b0a920e39b694e89a9b903324305bd53dfe6aa178cd90547ad874cb

    Per-patient values of 13 pyFR patients (results/primary/per_subject.tsv) are the pyFR cohort.

  6. supersedesAcross 180 patients in three free-recall cohorts, pooled pre-recall hippocampal HFA was +0.074 dB; corrected cohort differences were not significant sci:sha256:6783164c262923af7bf09d5a6cc077be2a87efa1cdcef08a62dfeb0559c5db01

    Same package and analysis. The title of ff6ff90f gave only the one-stage p = 0.01 and did not give the planned random-effects result (REML + HKSJ p = 0.21, Holm p = 0.31). This version corrects the title.

Cited by

0 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

No incoming citations on Sciscape.