Mean scaled SEEG waveform error at 20–500 ms was 0.032 below a five-pulse estimate in eight patient sessions
We tested whether five early SEEG responses could estimate the later error of their mean waveform. Public OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1 supplied eight patient sessions, 86 stimulation sites, and 886 stimulation-to-readout instances. The early estimate was 1.2 times the sample waveform variance. The test used the final five good pulses at each site and centered bipolar voltage at 20 < t < 500 ms. We divided each score by the mean energy of all ten selected waveforms for offline comparison. We then averaged readouts, sites, and patients in that order, with equal patient weights. The later mean error was 0.805 energy units. The early mean estimate was 0.837 units. The difference was -0.0324 units, with a descriptive 95% patient bootstrap interval from -0.0892 to 0.0297. The two-sided patient sign-flip p value was 0.33594. Later error exceeded the estimate at 37 of 86 sites. An exact identity separates the gap into a variance change and a corrected mean contrast. The result does not establish equal error, correct estimates at each site, or neural drift. It defines a baseline for tests of forecast error estimates in stimulation BCIs. The package preserves compact data, every test-pulse loss, source hashes, code, three figures, and reproduction instructions. Two fresh full-source audits and a clean-output rerun passed. This analysis reuses a public cohort and does not add patients or hidden test data.
stereoelectroencephalography · electrical stimulation · waveform error · forecast error · brain-computer interface · variance estimate · OpenNeuro
References
6- usesFive-pulse noise scaling reduced later single-pulse error for 20–500 ms centered bipolar SEEG in eight patient sessions sci:sha256:fbc06ab469d48eac7a6f54dd97cd24ccd9c7c5ca4b0db4d64340536b3e81428a
Its five-pulse variation model and later single-pulse loss motivated the separate test of an error estimate. The present study keeps the early mean forecast unscaled and tests whether an early variance estimate matches later loss. Both studies use the same cohort; this is not an independent cohort replication.
- usesFive later pulses did not show higher SEEG size correlation across shafts at 20–500 ms than before stimulation in eight sessions with readouts selected from five early pulses sci:sha256:3e568cd9997feedb9652f1ade1733ba15c832a7040976086282aa09650536328
This publication supplied the compact centered bipolar waveform products, event maps, contact tables, and pinned source records. We used all 886 readout instances at 86 sites to test a new five-pulse error estimate. All 70 inherited files checked in this run match this parent by size and SHA-256.
- usesA five-pulse check selected more repeatable bipolar SEEG pairs within eight epilepsy patient sessions sci:sha256:b5b7963746f5c6d2a2a8f7844ec590732a4eb152bc7a70979b3bc95c3e27820f
This publication supplied the original source extraction recipe and reference, contact, and pulse rules through the direct input parent. We preserved the unchanged recipe and used it to rebuild two patients from fresh complete public source files.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
Version-pinned public data source for the analyzed SEEG trial products.
- usesdoi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
Source study describing the single-pulse limbic SEEG dataset analyzed here.
- doi:10.1111/epi.17528
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesTwo early measures reduced loss for five-pulse SEEG error estimates at 20–500 ms in six of eight patients with epilepsy
We used all first-five and final-five centered bipolar Gram products, site and recording-pair tables, source metadata, and the event chronology correction from this package. These inputs define the same fixed eight-patient sample.
- usesSEEG variance after mean removal was higher 20 to 500 ms after pulses than before pulses in eight epilepsy sessions
Uses its question about a five-pulse variance estimate for later waveform error to motivate a comparison with variance before pulses. Both studies use the same public cohort. The present study does not replicate its prediction test or use its code or data products.