Global amplitude removal lowered mean site accuracy after recorded contact order reversal in eight STReEF patients with four SEEG pairs

1. 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 metadata selection and pinned retrieval helpers through the direct parent publication. These helpers selected the fixed sample and enabled the raw-data rebuild. We retained their license notice.

2. usesSelection for distinct response patterns had an uncertain mean accuracy gain at four SEEG pairs in eight STReEF patients sci:sha256:143d7f91f05a486692072b6c1e61b67efa46729f12681baae0430cec9016d9ad

   We used its four-site sample in each of eight STReEF SEEG patients. We reused its compact features, source records, and retrieval code. We rebuilt all 320 native epoch ranges. The new analysis compares amplitude and normalized site readers.

3. usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005448.v1.0.0

   This exact STReEF release supplied the eight-patient SEEG sample and source metadata used in the analysis.

4. doi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2025.100274
5. doi:10.1007/s12021-022-09567-6

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

• usesAbsolute cosine reduced mean four-site accuracy in eight STReEF SEEG patients after recorded contact order reversal

  Reused global signed cosine as the matched comparator. The same fit means, residual variance scales, and pair ranking isolated the effect of absolute scoring. All patient correct counts matched.

• usesA signed cosine reader had lower mean site accuracy than a voltage distance reader for recorded 1 mA to 2 mA transfer in three STReEF SEEG patients with eight pairs per patient at 20 to 100 ms

  Its known amplitude-removal result informed the signed cosine comparison. It tested recorded contact order reversal. This study tests recorded current transfer. The patients overlap, so these are not independent replications.

• usesRMS ratios kept decisions under simulated gains shared by both windows, with no clear accuracy gain in eight SEEG patients

  Its response-amplitude removal and gain tests motivated the question about division by RMS before a pulse. We used a different feature and made a new reader comparison. Its record gives context for prior cohort reuse.

• usesResponse correlations gave no clear site accuracy gain with five fit pulses per site and four SEEG pairs in eight patients at 50 percent weight

  This work supplied the fixed four-site sample, fit-only pair rank, marginal feature scales, and independent-reader design. We reproduced its 115 correct labels from 160 test pulses before we compared full response correlations.

• usesDisjoint SEEG pairs gave 53.1% mean minimum four-site accuracy, compared with 53.8%, in eight STReEF patients. Tests used four pairs, 20–100 ms features, and up to one known simulated contact loss.

  We reused the fixed four-site sample, feature arrays, native audits, source metadata, and retrieval helpers. Its unrestricted intact counts provided an independent baseline check.

• usesResponse correlations gave no clear site accuracy gain with five fit pulses per site and four SEEG pairs in eight patients at 50 percent weight

  This work supplied the fixed four-site sample, fit-only pair rank, marginal feature scales, and independent-reader design. We reproduced its 115 correct labels from 160 test pulses before we compared full response correlations.

• usesFit voltage offsets gave no clear four-bit site accuracy gain in offline tests of eight SEEG patients with frozen readers

  The archive supplied the exact eight-patient four-site split, all candidate features, native frozen-reader method, source helpers, metadata, and pinned raw ranges. This work preserves that reader and tests voltage sample coding.

• usesA four-pair SEEG reader kept 73.1% four-site accuracy under 16 ideal recording sign patterns in eight patients

  We used its compact voltage features, fixed sample, source records, and signed and amplitude-only reader rules. We checked its 320 primary baseline decisions. We retrieved all 320 pinned voltage ranges again and matched all input arrays. The new test adds independent recording pair sign distances and all 16 sign patterns.

• usesA four-pair SEEG reader kept 73.1% four-site accuracy under 16 ideal recording sign patterns in eight patients

  We used its compact voltage features, fixed sample, source records, and signed and amplitude-only reader rules. We checked its 320 primary baseline decisions. We retrieved all 320 pinned voltage ranges again and matched all input arrays. The new test adds independent recording pair sign distances and all 16 sign patterns.

• usesCertified feature packets cut bytes by 82.2% and kept all 160 fixed SEEG reader labels in eight STReEF patients under exact scoring

  We retain the complete source archive. We reuse its eight patients, four sites, four-pair fitting rule, split, and early response features. We match all 160 source reader labels before we test new feature packets.

• usesA rule for one known shaft loss gave 39.4% mean worst site accuracy after recorded contact order reversal in eight STReEF patients with four SEEG pairs

  This study used the fixed eight-patient, four-site SEEG sample, voltage features, scale rule, ranking reference, and source retrieval code. A fresh raw-data rebuild matched all arrays. The intact rank reference reproduced 115 correct labels out of 160.