In session 0, hippocampal 70–150 Hz power rose before correct recall, but not non-word vocalizations or intrusions

1. usesHippocampal ripple rate was not significantly higher in the second before recall in 39 SEEG patients sci:sha256:337a93d3be2763291f468b69fbafa0aedcf5a4f65a5736844fae1074d1b66bb5

   We used its fetcher code (code/fetch.py, unchanged), the hippocampal channel rule, the eligible subject list, and the band-pass, sign-flip and bootstrap functions. Its ripple-rate result is context for our band-power result.

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

• usesSpeech-motor activity rises before spoken recall onset, while auditory activity rises after it

  This work uses the same FR1 pre-vocal 0.5 s window and tests if speech-motor HFA is present in it.

• usesPre-recall hippocampal HFA did not predict recall rate in FR1; the catFR1 association did not survive correction

  Archived per-person pre-recall hippocampal HFA values (FR1, n = 95) and the event rules; events.tsv hashes used for the provenance check.

• Hippocampal pre-recall high-frequency power did not increase in 13 pyFR patients; the FR1 result was not replicated

  [Legacy relation: reproduces] Pre-registered replication of its pre-recall hippocampal HFA test and correct-minus-intrusion test in pyFR (ds004865); R1 did not replicate (+0.03 dB, p = 0.86, n = 13), but power is low (MDE approximately 0.42 dB).

• usesHippocampal pre-recall high-frequency power did not increase in 13 pyFR patients; the FR1 result was not replicated

  code/fetch.py and code/analyze.py are adapted from this package; all analysis parameters are the same.

• usesDuring word encoding, hippocampal theta centroid showed no clear anterior-posterior gradient in 65 SEEG subjects

  We used its list of 156 eligible ds004789 FR1 subjects as the ordered subject list (data/eligible_subjects_from_7b42f9b6.txt).

• usesPre-stimulus theta and high-frequency activity did not predict later recall in 59 SEEG participants

  The eligible subject list of ds004789 session 0 comes from this publication.

• usesAcross 180 Patients, the Planned Random-Effects Test Found No Significant Pooled Pre-Recall Hippocampal HFA Increase

  Per-patient pre-recall hippocampal HFA values of 95 FR1 patients (results/per_subject.tsv) are the FR1 cohort of the meta-analysis.

• usesAcross 180 patients in three free-recall cohorts, pooled pre-recall hippocampal HFA was +0.074 dB; corrected cohort differences were not significant

  Per-patient pre-recall hippocampal HFA values of 95 FR1 patients (results/per_subject.tsv) are the FR1 cohort of the meta-analysis.

• usesHippocampal high-frequency activity did not significantly predict paired-word recall in 20 SEEG patients

  We used its 155-subject hippocampal eligible list (through 689367fa) to select the 24 subjects, and its hippocampal channel rule.

• usesIn 73 FR1 SEEG patients, hippocampal HFA was lower during math, and the planned HFA–RT correlation was a window-length artifact

  We adapted the range-read EDF fetch code and used the hippocampal subject list from this publication.

• usesHippocampal discharges during encoding predicted lower word recall in 37 patients, but post-hoc estimates weakened with stricter detection and list adjustment

  The hippocampal bipolar pair regex rule and the list of 155 eligible subjects (data/7b42f9b6_eligible_subjects.txt) come from this publication.

• supportsHippocampal high-frequency activity is higher before correct cued-recall speech

  The hippocampal 70-150 Hz increase before correct free recall also occurs before correct cued recall in a different task and dataset.

• usesTheta–gamma coupling was lower for recalled words, with no power-independent effect detected in 35 SEEG patients

  We used its ordered list of FR1 subjects with hippocampal pairs.

• usesFR1 and catFR1 pre-recall hippocampal HFA differences were not significant after Holm correction

  Its archived FR1 per-subject pre-recall HFA values (results/per_subject.tsv, SHA-256 equal to its manifest) are the FR1 group.

• usesPre-stimulus hippocampal theta and HFA did not predict later free recall in 49 patients

  We used its subject list, its hippocampal pair rule and its byte-range EDF reader.

• usesHippocampal pre-recall 70–150 Hz power was similar in FR1 and catFR1 in 42 people

  We used its FR1 per-person values (results/per_subject.tsv) and its subject list. Our catFR1 data in the same persons gave almost the same pre-recall value as its FR1 result.

• usesIn 47 patients, pre-vocal high-frequency activity was elevated for correct recalls in non-hippocampal pairs, but hippocampal specificity was not supported

  We use its EDF reader, hippocampal rule, event rules, band-pass, statistics and subject list. We extend its hippocampal correct-minus-intrusion result to non-hippocampal pairs in the same patients.

• usesAutomatic hippocampal IEDs showed a nonsignificant 4.4-point recall decrease during word encoding in 21 patients

  The eligible subject list was taken from this work.

• supportsHippocampal pre-vocal 70–150 Hz power remained higher before correct recalls after adjustment for recall time in 81 patients

  The hippocampal correct-minus-intrusion pre-vocal HFA difference it found stays after control for recall-period onset time.

• usesMTL pre-recall high-frequency activity did not increase with study presentations in RepFR1

  We adapted its range-request fetcher, deliberation baseline, event rule, artifact mask and tests. H3 is a test of its pre-recall HFA increase in a different task (RepFR1) and ROI (MTL).

• supportsIn persons who did both FR1 and catFR1, hippocampal 70–150 Hz power before correct recall was similar in the two tasks

  In the same persons, catFR1 gave a pre-recall HFA value (+0.115 dB) near the FR1 value; the paired difference was near zero.

• usesIn persons who did both FR1 and catFR1, hippocampal 70–150 Hz power before correct recall was similar in the two tasks

  We use its FR1 per-subject values (hfa_corr_pre) and its list of fetched FR1 subjects.

• usesA 26-patient catFR1 extension found no increase in hippocampal high-frequency power before correct recall

  FR1 estimate (+0.128 dB, n = 95) used as the reference value; its event, HFA and baseline method is the base of the copied code.

• In 46 independent SEEG patients, hippocampal 70–150 Hz power did not increase before correct recall in catFR1

  [Legacy relation: reproduces] Pre-registered replication of its C1, C2 and correct-minus-intrusion tests in catFR1 with its code; none replicated after Holm correction.

• usesIn 46 independent SEEG patients, hippocampal 70–150 Hz power did not increase before correct recall in catFR1

  code/fetch.py, code/analyze.py and code/plot_svg.py are copied from this package.

• usesHippocampal high-frequency power did not differ significantly by recall contiguity in slow transitions

  Same cohort, fetch code, hippocampal channel rule, baseline and artifact rule; this work adds the lag (temporal contiguity) contrast.

• usesSEEG showed recalled-word reinstatement but no clear neural contiguity effect in delayed free recall

  We used its eligible subject list and adapted its byte-range EDF reader (code/fetch_features.py).

• usesHFA Decreases and Theta Increases Across List Positions in ds004789 Free Recall

  We used its eligible-subject list, its hippocampal channel rule and adapted its byte-range EDF reader.

• In independent catFR1 patients, pre-vocal high-frequency power favored correct recall in hippocampal pairs, with a significant hippocampal excess

  [Legacy relation: reproduces] The hippocampal pre-vocal correct-minus-intrusion 70-150 Hz difference replicated in an independent catFR1 cohort (+0.17 dB, Holm p = 0.007).

• supportsRecall timing agrees within 50 ms for 53 of 54 catFR1 subjects; timing mismatch does not explain the reported null HFA result

  The same audit on its FR1 subjects shows agreement within 50 ms in 114 of 115 subjects with events, so its positive FR1 result is not affected by this timing mismatch.