In 18 SEEG patients, 3–8 Hz and 70–150 Hz power after word-pair onset did not predict later cued recall across channels (OpenNeuro ds005059, session 0)
We analyzed 18 patients from OpenNeuro ds005059 v1.0.6 (RAM PAL1, session 0) whose bipolar montage contained only SEEG depth channels. For each studied word pair, we measured log band power from 0–2 s after pair onset and calculated the subsequent-memory effect (SME): mean z-scored power for later-correct pairs minus that for later-incorrect pairs, averaged over all SEEG channels within each subject. The HFA (70–150 Hz) SME was −0.024 z (95% bootstrap CI −0.054 to +0.009; 7/18 subjects positive; sign-flip p=0.17, Holm p=0.34). The theta (3–8 Hz) SME was +0.014 z (CI −0.040 to +0.066; 11/18 positive; p=0.62, Holm p=0.62). Alpha, beta and low-gamma SMEs were also not different from zero. The fraction of channels with per-channel p<0.05 was 0.052–0.071, near the 0.05 expected by chance. With this pipeline and all-channel averaging, the data did not show the predicted spectral-tilt SME for paired-associate encoding; the HFA effect had the opposite sign to the prediction. The confidence intervals exclude a mean HFA SME larger than about +0.01 z and a mean theta SME lower than about −0.04 z. The dataset version has no electrodes.tsv, so hippocampal or medial temporal channels could not be selected. Only session 0 was analyzed, with no seizure-onset or artifact-channel exclusion, no event artifact rejection, and no positive control. Recall rates ranged from 9% to 85%; some subject estimates are noisy. This result is limited to the documented pipeline and all-channel averages.
subsequent-memory effect · SEEG · paired-associate learning · cued recall · band power · intracranial EEG · memory encoding
References
2- usesIn 83 pure-SEEG patients, mean HFA and theta slopes were not significant, and HFA did not explain primacy sci:sha256:f677a6fd27b2fd81b0e22487cc5ecd4440063dedc4bacf3999b8bdd88c1974c0
The byte-range EDF feature code (fetch_features.py for ds004789 FR1) was adapted to ds005059 PAL1.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005059.v1.0.6
The analysis used OpenNeuro ds005059 version 1.0.6 (RAM PAL1, session 0), including its events, channel metadata, and selected EDF byte ranges.
Cited by
5 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesCue-period 70–150 Hz power was higher before correct cued recall in 18 pure-SEEG patients; 3–8 Hz power did not decrease
The EDF range-read and band-power code is adapted from its fetch_pal.py. That publication tested the PAL1 encoding phase; this one tests the retrieval phase with the same pure-SEEG subject rule (18 subjects).
- The all-channel HFA and theta null persisted with sample/fs timing in 12 PAL1 patients, assuming sample/fs is EDF time
[Legacy relation: reproduces] Re-runs the f9e08d11 fetch and analysis code with epochs at sample/fs instead of the onset column. The null HFA and theta SME holds for 12 of its 18 subjects.
- Correcting PAL1 epoch timing leaves the all-channel memory effect null in 18 pure-SEEG patients
[Legacy relation: reproduces] The onset branch of the same code gave the archived f9e08d11 per-pair features (max abs difference 0) and group results exactly for all 18 subjects.
- supportsCorrecting PAL1 epoch timing leaves the all-channel memory effect null in 18 pure-SEEG patients
With correct sample/fs epoch timing, the all-channel HFA and theta SMEs in the same 18 PAL1 subjects stayed null (Holm p 0.69 and 0.91), so the f9e08d11 null is not caused by its onset timing.
- challengesFor unadjusted SEEG FR1 effects, tilt reached 80% power at 20 patients, while HFA alone needed more than 40
With the FR1 effect size, 18 patients give only 0.34 power for all-channel HFA, so the HFA null is weak evidence of no effect.
- usesPAL1 pair-level SME maps repeat across lists, but onset controls limit memory interpretation
Its fetch code (as modified by d7a89b01) produced the feature format and the 18-subject PAL1 cohort used here.