Five-pulse target fraction selection did not show a clear gain over energy selection within stimulation shafts in seven offline SEEG sessions
We tested a rule for stimulation site selection with public SEEG data from OpenNeuro ds004696, version 1.0.1. The test used seven patient sessions, 57 sites, and 20 groups. Sites in a group shared one stimulation shaft, one current, and one recording panel. The first five good pulses selected a site. The final five pulses tested that choice. Target fraction compared target voltage energy with mean energy on other recording shafts. Compared with selection by target energy, the mean later gain was 0.75 percentage points. The descriptive 95% patient bootstrap interval was -0.30 to +1.93 points. The patient sign-flip p value was 0.28125. This result did not show a clear gain and did not establish equal performance. No group completed all calibration before all test pulses. Thus this offline test does not show a usable future calibration or improved brain-computer interface control. The package provides exact analysis inputs, all site scores, a timing audit, four figures, source code, source hashes, and reproduction instructions. Two complete public source files passed new hash and waveform checks. Other extraction records are inherited and marked.
stereoelectroencephalography · electrical stimulation · brain-computer interfaces · site selection · target fraction
References
4- usesA five-pulse check selected more repeatable bipolar SEEG pairs within eight epilepsy patient sessions sci:sha256:b5b7963746f5c6d2a2a8f7844ec590732a4eb152bc7a70979b3bc95c3e27820f
Used the exact centered bipolar pulse products, all contact tables, source metadata, and the unchanged retrieval and extraction code. These inputs enabled the fixed-panel site comparison and independent source checks.
- usesThree early valid 6 mA pulses per site selected sites with greater later SEEG voltage energy than random expectation in five patient sessions sci:sha256:2986e9c79b14eb86379a6faea58142d182aaac35b734ad23f0dd1db049ae222a
Used its earlier site-selection result by response energy to define the energy comparator. Its dataset and numerical results were not used in the present calculation.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
Analyzed the released CRP pulse waveform derivatives and contact metadata from OpenNeuro ds004696, version 1.0.1.
- usesdoi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
Source publication for the OpenNeuro recordings and released CRP pulse waveform derivatives used here.
Cited by
5 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesFive pulses gave higher mean later site ranks than one pulse in seven offline SEEG sessions
This study reuses the candidate-group design and common target panels from this publication. It confirms all 20 groups. The new question compares pulse budgets rather than target-fraction and energy rules at a fixed budget. It uses the same cohort and is not an independent replication.
- usesSeparate five-pulse profiles had higher mean SEEG spatial error than a shared profile at 20–500 ms in seven patient sessions
All 25 compact data files are copied unchanged from this publication. Its extraction and source audit scripts are adapted to this package. We use its patient, shaft, and current grouping to test spatial profile prediction. This is a different endpoint on the same cohort.
- usesSeparate five-pulse profiles had higher mean SEEG spatial error than a shared profile at 20–500 ms in seven patient sessions
All 25 compact data files are copied unchanged from this publication. Its extraction and source audit scripts are adapted to this package. We use its patient, shaft, and current grouping to test spatial profile prediction. This is a different endpoint on the same cohort.
- usesCorrection with five pulses changed 40 of 217 site choices without a clear later gain at 20–500 ms in seven offline SEEG sessions
This publication supplied the method for common recording panels within stimulation shafts and currents. The new test compares mean-waveform and corrected scores and permits groups with one recording shaft.
- usesFive pulses preserved more later SEEG utility than random sets of the same size under uniform weights in seven offline sessions
Its target-fraction analysis informed the use of common recording panels and equal weights across off-target shafts. This study evaluates sets of sites across linear utility weights instead of a single ratio-ranked site.