SEEG band power did not predict later free recall above chance in five RepFR1 patients
We tested whether stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) band power after word onset predicted later free recall in RepFR1, using session 0 from five patients and lists 0–9 (270 word presentations per patient). Words appeared one, two, or three times. A shrinkage linear discriminant analysis decoder used log band power in five frequency bands from 0–0.75 s after onset, with five-fold cross-validation grouped by list and serial position removed using training-fold fits. Mean held-out area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.598 for first presentations of one-time words (4/5 patients above 0.5; one-sided sign-flip p = 0.16), 0.519 for first presentations of three-time words (p = 0.34), 0.456 for the mean score across three presentations (p = 0.91), and 0.501 across all presentations. The mean of three scores did not improve on the first score for three-time words (difference −0.063 AUC, two-sided p = 0.19). Mean recall rates were 0.23, 0.28, and 0.41 for one-, two-, and three-time words. Thus, in this small sample, this band-power readout did not predict later recall above chance at the group level. Each patient contributed only 30 one-time words; the study had low power for AUC below 0.6. The analysis used one feature set and one decoder, had no electrode localization or region selection, and was offline. The package includes the archived features, code, results, source hashes, and figure. The EDF and event files were fetched from live OpenNeuro S3 URLs; the exact immutable dataset release used was not recorded.
stereo-electroencephalography · free recall · memory encoding · band power · linear discriminant analysis · repeated words · memory BCI · RepFR1
References
2- usesRepeated presentations raised free recall by about 15 points; spacing showed no effect after position control sci:sha256:925a15adc284958e80e4ee2c44954b7f4d4aa2a5b8a2859b65f87051d34f74e7
Its behavioral finding (repetition raises recall in RepFR1) motivated the 1x vs 3x word comparison; our recall rates (0.23, 0.28, 0.41) agree in direction.
- usesSEEG band power was near chance for repetition decoding after serial-position control in four patients sci:sha256:86fd8c699c922fd9236cb21b6d062ee720c07cce20b7ebde410e475b094e2572
We reuse its ds005411 byte-range fetch recipe and band-power feature code (fetch_features.py), with one change: events.tsv is also saved.
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- supportsBand power did not predict later free recall in 21 RepFR1 patients
Its null result (no group-level subsequent-recall readout from 0-0.75 s band power) holds in 16 new patients: mean AUC 0.497 over all presentations, and 0.498 (95% CI 0.483-0.513) over all 21 patients. Its higher 1x-word AUC (0.598) became smaller with more patients (0.537, Holm p = 0.53).
- usesBand power did not predict later free recall in 21 RepFR1 patients
We reuse its archived band-power features for 5 patients (R1501J, R1514E, R1516E, R1528E, R1534D) without change, and its feature, decoder and CV method. We changed its fetch_features.py (post-word window only, channel types saved, first available session).
- supportsIn 21 RepFR1 patients, events.tsv sample was word-locked and onset was not
Its 5 patients are in our test. Its code reads at sample, which we show is the word-locked column.