Paired rest power did not show a clear three-target SEEG gain from actual to imagined grasp with eight inputs in two people
We tested whether paired rest power improves a three-target SEEG reader. Training used actual grasp. Testing used 86 imagined grasp trials from two people, with complete blocks kept out of training. Each reader used eight amplifier inputs. Mean balanced accuracy was 33.3% for task log power and 34.8% for task minus rest log power. The change was +1.5 percentage points. The 95% conditional trial interval was -11.7 to +14.6 points. Chance was 33.3%. The test did not establish a gain. Actual target decoding was also weak. Visible cues, pre-cue prediction and missing contact maps limit motor intent claims. The package has code, features, raw audit trials, source receipts, model values, trial predictions and five figures. This is an offline reading test. It does not test stimulation.
stereo-EEG · imagined grasp · brain-computer interface · rest subtraction · target decoding
References
4- usesRest calibration reduces mean task accuracy in fixed SEEG imagery tests from two people sci:sha256:b2d5a1ce684c63615eb48aace1fd2a51169cfeb20f8e08e74a6759aa6964ec06
The earlier publication supplied all 30 feature blocks, 434 retained trials, eight raw audit trials, source metadata, receipt hashes and the extraction recipe. These files enabled the new three-target test from actual to imagined grasp. We also repeated its binary task-versus-rest reader as a positive control.
- usesdoi:10.5061/dryad.nq4fs
Source dataset used for the converted NEMAR recordings and the analyzed signals.
- usesdoi:10.82901/nemar.nm000397
NEMAR nm000397 version 1.0.0 supplied the BrainVision conversion used in this study.
- doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150359
Source study describing the actual and imagined grasp recordings and their acquisition.
Cited by
3 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesFixed early SEEG readers with eight inputs had 40% mean balanced accuracy for three force target ranks across executed grasps in four people
Uses the earlier two-person executed-to-imagined three-target result as context to choose a distinct test: transfer between two executed grasps in four people. The earlier scores are not new observations in this study.
- usesSEEG readers with eight inputs increased squared sensor error over target estimates during late grasps in four people
Uses the earlier target label question to explain the difference between target prediction and measured force estimation. The present study uses new reader fits, trial predictions and analysis code.
- usesSEEG readers with eight inputs had greater mean target loss than uniform predictions during late grasps in four people
This study uses the earlier target-level label and control design. It extends the two-person actual-to-imagined test to four people and transfer between late executed grasps.