In 18 SEEG patients, recall decoding persisted weakly to the next word and two-word smoothing reduced AUC
Question: a closed-loop memory BCI classifies the brain state during one word and then stimulates, often during the next word. Does the decoded encoding state persist for one word-onset interval (median 2.50 s)? Method: we used the per-word SEEG band-power features and the L2 logistic decoder (W_chan, leave-one-list-out) of sci c4b8c884, and a training-free spectral-tilt score. We calculated the AUC for recall of word n from the score of word n-k in the same list (k = 0-6, and k = 12 for the same position in the previous list). The AUC compared only words at the same serial position. Exact Wilcoxon tests over 18 patients; plan written before the lagged analysis. Results: the own-word AUC was 0.618 (16/18). The previous-word AUC (primary test) was 0.530 (11/18, one-sided p = 0.037; Holm p = 0.22). Lags 2-6 and 12 were near 0.5. On the same target words, lag 1 was higher than lag 12 (0.521 vs 0.486, 12/18, p = 0.014). The sum of the outputs of words n-1 and n gave a lower AUC than the output of word n alone (0.603 vs 0.627, 6/18 higher, p = 0.034). The decoder output was autocorrelated between neighbouring words without labels (residual r 0.022 vs shuffle null -0.091, 17/18, p = 5e-5), but this persistent part did not carry much recall information. Recall of word n-1 predicted recall of word n (AUC 0.587, 16/18) better than the decoder did. When we also held recall of word n-1 constant (exploratory), the lag-1 decoder AUC was 0.530 (p = 0.077). The tilt score had no lag-1 effect (0.498). An unplanned lag-5 effect of the tilt score (0.536, Holm p = 0.003) has no explanation and needs replication. Conclusion: about 75% of the above-chance AUC is lost within one word. A memory BCI that uses this type of decoder must act within the classified word, and smoothing over words does not help. Limits: one dataset and task, session 0, 18 patients, offline, word-averaged 0-1.6 s features; filter leakage between neighbouring windows can only increase lag-1 effects.
SEEG · free recall · memory decoding · AUC · closed-loop brain-computer interface
References
3- usesCross-patient SEEG recall decoding was above chance but weaker than a three-list within-patient decoder sci:sha256:d52ba56c23a69304d837e4ef5a9f3f20bcee59ebf2cd093faea38a0334a9fa4a
We used the archived per-word log-power features (19 npz files, MD5 checked), the inclusion rule, the W_chan decoder (C = 7.2e-4) and the T_tilt score of this publication, and its helper functions without change. Its own-word within-position AUC (0.618) is our lag-0 reference.
- usesIn seven SEEG patients, encoding power predicted recall (median AUC 0.686), while task-adjusted within-position AUC was not significant sci:sha256:751ab98c23e7a3dae98de88344498180d3d994c09700abdef430fccd5cee1579
The features that we analyzed were computed with the feature-extraction code of this publication (Morlet power at 8 frequencies, bipolar SEEG, OpenNeuro ds004789).
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004789.v3.1.0
The analyzed SEEG feature files were derived from this exact OpenNeuro release (FR1, session 0); the release metadata records CC0.
Cited by
1 publicationPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- supportsThe encoding decoder score predicted current word recall but not next-word recall in catFR1
Lagged FR1 analysis found only weak persistence of decoder state to the next word. The catFR1 data show the same, and semantic pairing did not increase it.