Correction with five pulses changed 40 of 217 site choices without a clear later gain at 20–500 ms in seven offline SEEG sessions
We tested whether correction for pulse variation improves stimulation site choice with five calibration pulses. Public SEEG data came from OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1. Seven clinical sessions supplied 59 sites, 21 groups, and 217 target choices. The response window was 20 to 500 ms. Five separate final pulses scored each choice. Correction changed 40 choices. The planned mean later difference was -0.69% of an early response scale. Its descriptive 95% person bootstrap interval was -1.65% to +0.14%. This result did not show a clear gain or establish equal performance. Pulse timing overlapped across candidate sites, so this is an offline comparison. The package preserves exact data, all scores, source hashes, code, four figures, and repeat instructions. Fresh rebuilds matched every array and table for all eight source sessions.
stereoelectroencephalography · SEEG · electrical stimulation · site selection · pulse noise · response power · brain-computer interface · calibration
References
5- usesCorrection with four pulses kept all 15 site choices in five offline SEEG sessions from 20 to 500 ms sci:sha256:7fa58ebc437d3cd7bff7e68f724cb014118e9e9ee6a61829f102910c62ff956c
This publication supplied the correction question and score-crossing method. The new test extends that question to another public dataset, five primary pulses, and panels within stimulation shafts.
- usesEight SEEG sessions gave an uncertain 0.35% mean adjusted energy change between first and final five-pulse groups at 20–500 ms, relative to single-pulse power sci:sha256:701a70c791b431cdf88f3cc2912f7fecee95bc3ccb4d54c9866ec7f04090ec18
This publication supplied the exact compact pulse products, source metadata, corrected extraction code, and source checks. They enabled the new comparison of site choices with separate pulse sets.
- usesFive-pulse target fraction selection did not show a clear gain over energy selection within stimulation shafts in seven offline SEEG sessions sci:sha256:a26c5ceb2ffc9d324c3d13312cdccbd47e2c669b827ba0cbb0782b8fcec0c0fe
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.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
This version-pinned OpenNeuro dataset supplied the SEEG source data and metadata used in the offline analysis.
- doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
Cited by
6 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesFive pulses per site gave higher later 20–500 ms voltage scores than the nearest midpoint rule in seven offline SEEG sessions
This study uses the target comparison groups, five fit and five test pulses, voltage score definitions, and patient weighting from this design. The new comparison tests measured calibration against contact geometry in the same patient sample.
- usesFive-pulse consistency selection showed no clear later SEEG forecast gain over energy selection at 20 to 500 ms in seven offline sessions
This study uses the exact compact pulse products, common recording panels, pinned source records, and extraction code. It adds consistency selection, squared forecast skill, and response-power tradeoff checks.
- usesEnergy shared across four pulses gave no clear offline site-rank gain over total energy in five SEEG sessions at 100 to 500 ms
The final literature review used this prior correction-versus-total site-choice result to place the current evidence in context. It was read after current scores and did not change the analysis. The current test uses a separate five-person dataset and a selected-set rank endpoint.
- usesAllocation to two leading sites showed no clear gain in later 20–500 ms SEEG voltage scores at an equal pulse budget in five offline sessions
This study informed the use of cross-pulse score U for final choices with unequal pulse counts. The new comparison tests allocation at a fixed total budget.
- usesFive pulses preserved more later SEEG utility than random sets of the same size under uniform weights in seven offline sessions
Its cross-pulse energy correction informed the primary U score and the check with mean-waveform energy. This study uses the same public patient cohort and does not provide independent patient replication.
- usesFive-pulse shape selection showed no clear later SEEG agreement gain over power selection in seven offline sessions at 20–500 ms
This study uses all 25 compact pulse-product inputs, the shared target panel rule, source metadata, and extraction code from this publication. It adds a shape selector and an early-template to later-pulse endpoint.