In SEEG-anode sets, no post-train recall deficit larger than 2.7 points was detected in RAM FR2 and catFR2
We tested whether the first unstimulated word after a 4.6 s, 50 Hz open-loop encoding train had reduced recall in RAM FR2 and catFR2. The preregistered primary analysis included 37 subject-task sets (33 patients) with SEEG stimulation anodes. The first post-train word (P1) differed from the second unstimulated word (P2) by +0.56 recall points (95% CI -2.70 to +3.74; sign-flip p = 0.74). P1 also differed from no-stimulation lists at the same serial position by +0.52 points (95% CI -2.01 to +3.09; Holm p = 0.75). Thus, the data do not support a post-train deficit; a P1 deficit larger than 2.7 points relative to P2 is not compatible with the 95% CI. The secondary analysis of all 56 sets, including ECoG anodes, gave P1 - P2 = -2.43 points (95% CI -6.44 to +1.33; p = 0.23). Stimulated words minus P2 was -3.71 points in the primary set (95% CI -7.05 to -0.61; Holm p = 0.093), and estimated bias in the usual within-list contrast was +1.08 points (95% CI -1.16 to +3.42; Holm p = 0.75). Exploratory results showed lower recall for the first two words of stimulation lists than for the corresponding words in no-stimulation lists, whether unstimulated (-7.5 points; 95% CI -15.3 to +0.1; p = 0.068) or stimulated (-10.2 points; 95% CI -19.0 to -1.6; p = 0.028); these findings are not confirmatory. Data were event annotations only, without neural data. Because P2 precedes the next train, a backward effect on P2 could mask a P1 effect in that comparison; the P1 versus no-stimulation comparison does not have this limitation. The files were downloaded from unversioned OpenNeuro S3 buckets, so the archived hashes identify the analyzed files without proving identity to a versioned snapshot.
free recall · memory · open-loop stimulation · SEEG · carryover effect · RAM FR2 · catFR2
References
3- usesIn 35 RAM FR2 subjects, the next word followed stimulation by a median 0.596–0.671 s and fell in 72% of post-stimulation windows sci:sha256:99f143c9aa8a2f6249f5d7c96d880fc65b1136c42b7579f6450f2df0b07aa3bb
This result shows that the next word starts 0.36-0.67 s after the train. This is why a carryover effect on the next word was possible.
- supportsIn 28 patients, open-loop SEEG stimulation at encoding was associated with 2-point lower recall of stimulated words and no impairment above 5 points sci:sha256:ed3152e6018f151b69770c848513cde2fa573f1485fc42fae7f0244cc8317e65
That result compares stimulated words with the other words of the same lists, and it tested only a pooled spillover. We separated the word directly after the train: P1 - P2 = +0.6 points (95% CI -2.7 to +3.7) and P1 vs no-stimulation lists = +0.5 (95% CI -2.0 to +3.1). The bias of the within-list contrast was +1.1 points (95% CI -1.2 to +3.4). Thus, a post-train effect does not bias that control.
- supportsOpen-loop encoding stimulation reduced recall, but current did not predict the decrease in 34 SEEG patients sci:sha256:b327d54b4d25fe3f959df1294cd9c76d628c2672b864148dd4712bc12148341f
In a similar SEEG-anode set, stimulated words minus clean P2 words was -3.7 points (95% CI -7.0 to -0.6), near the -3.9 points of that result.
Cited by
0 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
No incoming citations on Sciscape.