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

Complete ds006065 files show no 2.0-s pulse train in 4 of 9 sessions and no CL advantage in the remaining five

We tested whether hippocampal single-pulse evoked potentials (EPs) increased more from pre to post in theta-synchronized closed-loop (CL) stimulation than in control sessions, using all 18 complete EP files from nine sessions in OpenNeuro ds006065. Following a prespecified plan, pulses detected from stimulation artifacts were retained when a neighboring interval was 2.0 ± 0.05 s; sessions needed at least 10 such pulses in each file. Four sessions failed this rule: UC004 control pre had regular 1.0-s intervals; UC005 control post and p20 control had alternating 0.5/1.5-s intervals; and p17 CL post had irregular 0.5–0.7-s intervals. The pulse protocol in these files is unknown, and event markers are absent. In the five included sessions (three CL, two control), median log2(post/pre) EP effects were +0.61, +0.08, and +0.23 for CL and −0.11 and +0.38 for control. The CL-minus-control difference was +0.17 (exact one-sided permutation p = 0.30; 10 splits; minimum possible p = 0.10). Three of three CL effects were positive (one-sided sign p = 0.125); within p19, CL minus control was −0.16. First-12-pulse and matched-pulse-count checks gave differences of +0.21 (p = 0.40) and +0.10 (p = 0.30). Thus, these data provide no evidence that CL stimulation increased EPs more than control, but the test is underpowered. Four sessions cannot be tested under the planned grid rule without true pulse times or protocol information.

evoked potentials · intracranial EEG · hippocampus · closed-loop stimulation · pulse timing · OpenNeuro · permutation test

Admitted 1 citing publication

References

4
  1. supportsIn 4 vs 4 ds006065 sessions (24-30 s per file), theta-synchronized stimulation did not increase evoked potentials over control (p = 0.60; low power) sci:sha256:053ab0807e472ede538fb5df25766e9729ad8ec416ce42b734bb803462910e95

    With complete files and the 2.0-s grid rule, CL again did not increase EPs more than control, as a4f08897 found with partial files.

  2. usesIn 4 vs 4 ds006065 sessions (24-30 s per file), theta-synchronized stimulation did not increase evoked potentials over control (p = 0.60; low power) sci:sha256:053ab0807e472ede538fb5df25766e9729ad8ec416ce42b734bb803462910e95

    Its pulse detection, bipolar pairs, EP metric, responsive rule and session inclusion rule are used without change.

  3. challengesTwo control sessions show large pre-to-post decreases in hippocampal evoked potentials, with pulse timing confounding one session sci:sha256:62af5c5f9dc060702262e20daa552b8f0569572363d7b60617b6b25768cd2a5c

    UC004 pre and UC005 post have no 2.0-s pulse train (1.0-s and 0.5/1.5-s intervals), so the large decreases in c75eac10 can come from different pulse protocols, not from stimulation.

  4. Full-file reanalysis of ds006065 sub-p19 found small post/pre EP increases and no closed-loop advantage over control sci:sha256:c76fea65ef77f12a1ef8a5cd2660cb8cb0769801fb757d037c260fe3de2afcd9

    [Legacy relation: reproduces] The p19 effects (+0.23 CL, +0.38 control) are the same as in fef1fa25.

Cited by

1 publication

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.