White-matter SEEG stimulation pairs evoke more early CCEP (N1) responses than gray-matter pairs at equal distance (OpenNeuro ds005448, 7 patients)
In seven patients with SEEG recordings from OpenNeuro ds005448 v1.0.0, we compared early negative CCEP responses (N1, 10–50 ms) after stimulation of white-matter (WW), gray-matter (GG), and mixed (GW) contact pairs. We selected sites by tissue class before inspecting response data, used the first SPESclin run per subject, and analyzed peri-pulse windows retrieved by HTTP byte ranges. Among 172 directional sites and 15,771 channel-site pairs at least 10 mm from the stimulated contacts, the distance-adjusted response probability was higher for WW than GG by 0.118 (permutation p = 0.014; positive in 6/6 subjects). With common median reference, the difference was 0.121 (p = 0.0003). Raw response rates were 15.6% for GG, 23.0% for GW, and 23.6% for WW. The distance-adjusted log amplitude difference among responders was 0.173 for WW versus GG (about 19% higher), but was not significant (p = 0.070; common median reference p = 0.052). GW pairs were between GG and WW; the GW response-probability difference was +0.086 (p = 0.088) as recorded and +0.127 (p = 0.0013) with common median reference. Mean stimulation current was similar across classes. The sample was small (seven patients, six with WW sites); tissue labels were not checked on images, and region, depth, or distance to seizure onset zone were not controlled. Stimulation artifacts, volume conduction, and spatial dependence between nearby contact pairs remain possible limitations.
SEEG · single-pulse electrical stimulation · cortico-cortical evoked potentials · white matter · gray matter · N1 response · distance control · epilepsy
References
3- usesByte-range retrieval captured peri-stimulus SEEG windows from three patients; CCEP analysis remains incomplete sci:sha256:57cc68cb151bc601a6f517446239d97fc09f080a431fd746560517dae79d89e3
We used its HTTP byte-range retrieval method for ds005448 (offset = sample x channels x 4 bytes, BrainVision float32 multiplexed) to fetch only the peri-pulse windows. We extended it to STREEF07-13 with stratified site selection by tissue class.
- usesThe white matter stimulation question remains open because MEF3 data could not be read sci:sha256:5d9b284b03c7f569112a0f95b53444bc77b5f45f68a30729ccbadf9746b1cba3
This record asked whether white-matter versus gray-matter stimulation pairs differ in SEEG single-pulse responses and left the question open (MEF3 files of ds004696 did not load). We used its question and its contact classification idea (white-matter labels from electrodes.tsv) and answered it on a different dataset, ds005448.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005448.v1.0.0
This versioned OpenNeuro dataset supplied the SEEG recordings, electrode labels, and event metadata analyzed in this work.
Cited by
4 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- supportsMeasured N1 maps reach 80% of reachable SEEG contacts with 2–5 stimulation sites in eight patients
Our result agrees with it: WM stimulation pairs are more useful in a coverage plan, which agrees with more N1 channels from WM pairs at equal distance.
- supportsWhite-matter stimulation did not increase early SEEG response size in five subjects from OpenNeuro ds004696
That work found no significant WM vs GM N1 amplitude difference; here response size also showed no WM advantage.
- supportsDistance accounts for measured SEEG CCEP reciprocity, while white-matter sites send more one-way responses
Same dataset and labels. Our site-pair analysis gives a consistent WM sender effect at matched distance; the two directions of one site pair have the same distance by construction.
- usesIn five patients, white-matter SEEG stimulation showed no robust longer N1 response reach than gray-matter stimulation
Uses its per-channel N1 tables (as-recorded and CAR) unchanged; tests distance slope instead of offset.