Selection for distinct response patterns had an uncertain mean accuracy gain at four SEEG pairs in eight STReEF patients
We tested two fixed recording pair selection rules with public STReEF SEEG data from eight patients. Each patient had four conditions, five calibration pulses per condition, and five separate test pulses. The recorded stimulation contact order changed between groups. At four bipolar pairs, selection for distinct patterns gave 76.3% mean test accuracy. Selection for total separation gave 71.9%. The mean gain was 4.4 percentage points; the patient bootstrap interval was −1.9 to 11.9 points. The test did not establish a selection benefit. Matched before-pulse scores were 28.1% and 32.5%. The all-pair reference gave 77.5%. Four pairs required six to eight physical contacts. The split was per condition, not globally chronological. The package preserves all features, predictions, source checks, native examples, code, and figures. It supplies a narrow public test of response reading for stimulation feedback. It does not establish online performance or a neural mechanism.
stereo-EEG · brain stimulation · response identification · recording pair selection · signal classification
References
3- usesThe nearest half of SEEG pairs had a higher mean rate of repeatable waveforms across recorded contact order reversal in eight STReEF patients sci:sha256:399c1198c4184a27bd9be26923336885a19d4fdd7d9a5d49a4ca8f9cffac5cae
We used its fixed STReEF metadata sample, source metadata, object version pins, byte range receipts, and MIT retrieval code. We selected its first four conditions per patient. We recovered the voltage again and computed new features, selection rules, and test results.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005448.v1.0.0
The analyzed source was STReEF, OpenNeuro ds005448 version 1.0.0. The report uses eight SEEG patients and source-defined recordings and metadata.
- doi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2025.100274
Cited by
1 publicationPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- supersedesSelection for distinct response patterns had an uncertain mean accuracy gain at four SEEG pairs in eight STReEF patients
This version corrects a display rounding mismatch. It states the exact main score, 122/160 or 76.25 percent. The voltage features, selected pairs, predictions, and uncertainty estimates are unchanged.