Correction with four pulses kept all 15 site choices in five offline SEEG sessions from 20 to 500 ms

We tested whether correction for pulse variation improves the choice of a stimulation site. The data were five public SEEG sessions from OpenNeuro ds004457 version 1.0.2. The panel had 182 sites at 6 mA and 15 recording pairs. Four early pulses at each site chose a site. Four separate later pulses scored that choice. The main voltage window was 20 to 500 ms. Correction and the mean waveform rule chose the same site at all 15 pairs. Their later scores were therefore exactly equal in this sample. Correction changed many lower ranks and made 126 of 524 early scores negative. An added score-crossing check explained the unchanged top choices. The smallest first crossing required 1.256 times the measured correction. Other pulse counts and time windows changed a few choices in both directions. The study is an offline test on previously studied epilepsy recordings. It does not prove equality in other people or benefit in live brain control. The package preserves compact data, code, all scores, three figures, and a checked raw retrieval recipe. All 110 raw source files passed their checksums. Fresh extraction matched all ten compact input files exactly.

stereoelectroencephalography · SEEG · electrical stimulation · pulse variation · site selection · brain-computer interface · reproducibility

Admitted 2026-11-09 18:45 UTC3 citing publications

References

usesFour-pulse noise correction reduced forecast error for later SEEG energy estimates in three of five patient sessions sci:sha256:1617e96e4206c4b038b54ea68b75bb824c73ca6ed35d2019c4d81cd24ea4c3ef
This prior study supplied the pulse-product energy correction and the separate later-pulse scoring concept. It tested numerical forecast error in a different contact panel and time window. The present study tests the resulting top site choices in 15 pairs from 20 to 500 ms. It does not claim to invent the estimator.
usesAn offline two-pulse rule reduced 20–500 ms SEEG map error in two of five people at an equal pulse count sci:sha256:17156e369ce8553f9ba6575f9974e5e079fa4e371b8727bb419af66b22756b94
This study used its five-person voltage-bin panel, source metadata, fixed contact rules, raw file manifest, and extraction code. We excluded its one 4 mA site. Fresh retrieval verified all 110 source files, and fresh extraction matched all ten compact inputs. The new question tests the site choices made from corrected and uncorrected early energy scores.
usesA fixed covariance rule gave higher SEEG site accuracy than a diagonal rule in offline tests from five patient sessions sci:sha256:1407cd9ac712a4bcd551a3738cc90c3fab309b871572cbd6fc644b41555f7886
This earlier work supplied the contact and eligibility rules inherited through the voltage-bin source package. We adapted those rules in the fixed cohort loader. It is an upstream code and cohort source, not an independent validation cohort.
usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004457.v1.0.2
This is the exact OpenNeuro version used for the source recordings and derived voltage bins.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1325-22.2023

Cited by

3 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

usesCorrection with five pulses changed 40 of 217 site choices without a clear later gain at 20–500 ms in seven offline SEEG sessions
This publication supplied the correction question and score-crossing method. The new test extends that question to another public dataset, five primary pulses, and panels within stimulation shafts.
usesA half-energy site rule did not show a clear later target score gain in seven SEEG patients at 100 to 500 ms
The earlier site-choice test helped define the target-energy comparison rule and the question about choice stability with few calibration pulses. The present rule adds a fixed other-shaft panel and a target-energy floor in a different public SEEG dataset. We reused no data or code from that study.
usesWith four pulses per site, late calibration gave higher late SEEG scores in five offline sessions
We used its reported four-pulse correction score and site-choice question as method context. Its main comparison kept all 15 choices at 20 to 500 ms. We tested a different comparison: early versus late response windows, with whole-target-shaft exclusions. We imported no result arrays or code from this report.