A rule that used half of one SEEG monitor's gain change did not establish pulse tracking after contact order reversal in eight patients

We tested whether one SEEG monitor could track pulse responses on other electrode shafts. The sample had eight epilepsy patients and 96 stimulation conditions from public STReEF data. Five early pulses selected each monitor and set response templates. Five later pulses followed a recorded contact order reversal. The rule applied half of the measured monitor gain change to each target template. Mean patient normalized error fell by 3.37 percent from the fixed template. Values from other pulses gave a 3.29 percent reduction. The benefit of correct pulse matching was 0.081 percent of fixed error. Its descriptive 95 percent patient interval was -0.168 to 0.293 percent. Thus this rule did not establish pulse tracking. An added early-only scale comparison had lower error without a test monitor reading. The result concerns retrospective slow-voltage reconstruction in a reused clinical sample. It does not establish a live interface benefit. The package supplies three figures, feature data, frozen fits, pulse-level losses, code, and version-pinned source retrieval. All 960 voltage ranges and 147 metadata files matched their source hashes. Independent loss checks and a numerical replay passed.

SEEG · electrical stimulation · pulse response · signal processing · voltage reconstruction · brain-computer interface · epilepsy · OpenNeuro