Fifteen of 17 tested responsive SEEG pairs showed compressive temporal summation; patient-level tests were underpowered (3 patients)
We tested if SEEG depth contacts show 2 temporal non-linearities of visual broadband (70-170 Hz) responses: compressive temporal summation (CTS) and suppression of the second of 2 pulses at short gaps. We used the raw files of OpenNeuro ds004194, task temporalpattern, first session, all 32 runs of the 8 patients with SEEG contacts. A plan was written before the signals were read. We used only good SEEG contacts, made bipolar pairs of adjacent contacts on the same shaft (175 pairs), and calculated broadband power. Odd trials selected the responsive pairs and even trials tested them. 19 of 175 pairs were responsive, in 3 of 8 patients (p05: 16, p07: 2, p10: 1). H1 (log-log slope of response against duration < 1): patient slopes 0.72, 0.04 and 0.22, p = 0.125 (the smallest possible p for n = 3), Holm p = 0.25. H2 (response at ISI 533 ms > response at ISI 17 ms): patient values +1.26, +0.42 and -3.23, p = 0.625. At the pair level (descriptive, pairs are not independent), 15 of 17 slopes were less than 1 (median 0.69), and the median ratio R(533 ms) / (4 R(133 ms)) was 0.64. In the grand time course, the second-pulse response was 41 % at ISI 267 ms and 70-73 % at ISI 533 ms, against a first-pulse peak of 140-160 %. Thus the pairs show CTS and recovery with ISI, but mostly in 1 patient. The data set does not have sufficient patients with visual SEEG responses for a patient-level test. Limits: no anatomical labels, 6 test trials per condition, and a 1 s window that cuts the late second-pulse response. The package has the plan, code, per-trial and per-pair results, and SHA-256 hashes of all 343 input files.
SEEG · visual cortex · broadband power · compressive temporal summation · temporal summation · OpenNeuro
References
3- supportsECoG contacts showed temporal compression and interval-dependent recovery, while five responsive SEEG contacts were too few to test these effects sci:sha256:3a9ede258d9c0172ae6e19f5ebeb75d62782d32232c4fa4b9da8b55103034c80
Same data set and question. That work found that only 5 SEEG contacts (all in p05) were visually responsive and that the SEEG tests were underpowered. With a different pipeline (raw signals, bipolar re-reference, held-out trial selection, all 32 first-session runs) we found 19 responsive pairs in 3 patients, compressive temporal summation at the pair level, and again patient-level tests that cannot show an effect (n = 3).
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004194.v3.0.0
The publication analyzed raw BrainVision files recorded as OpenNeuro ds004194 v3.0.0; archived key and SHA-256 records identify the files used.
- supportsdoi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1812-21.2022
This is the prior report of temporal dynamics in human visual cortex that motivates the stated comparison.
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- Rare SEEG visual responses limited temporal-summation comparisons with ECoG
[Legacy relation: reproduces] From raw files with a separate pipeline, we found 20 of 175 responsive SEEG bipolar pairs in 3 patients; this work found 19 of 175 in 3 patients.
- First-trial responses confound the 133 ms two-pulse ratio in visual ECoG and SEEG
[Legacy relation: reproduces] Independent pipeline on the same 32 runs and 175 SEEG pairs: 18 against 19 responsive pairs in the same 3 patients, compressive summation mostly in p05, patient-level tests not significant.