Hippocampal Maintenance Band Power Did Not Change with Load in 14 SEEG Patients; Encoding Power Increased
This independent replication tested whether hippocampal stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) band power changed with verbal working-memory load (4, 6, or 8 letters) in session 1 of OpenNeuro ds004752. A separate NumPy-only pipeline analyzed 15 patients. For the pre-specified primary test, maintenance-period (3.5–6 s) power was summarized by per-pair Spearman correlations, averaged within subject, and tested with exact sign-flip permutations and Holm correction across five bands. No hippocampal band passed correction in 14 patients. High gamma showed a negative trend (mean rho −0.068, 3/14 positive, p = 0.031, Holm p = 0.15). In exploratory encoding analyses (1.5–3 s), hippocampal theta, alpha, and beta power increased with load (Holm p = 0.014–0.038; 12/14 subjects positive); theta also increased in lateral temporal and other-region pairs. This encoding effect was not specific to the hippocampus and may reflect the greater number of letters on screen at higher loads. Fixation showed no hippocampal load effect (p ≥ 0.48). Accuracy decreased from 0.975 to 0.834 across set sizes, while response time increased with load (mean rho 0.30, p = 0.0002). Limits include session 1 only (about 50 trials per subject), atlas-based rather than visual contact localization, bipolar pairs only, no aperiodic correction, epileptic tissue not excluded, and an exploratory encoding result. EDF hashes matched S3 ETags, but the live-mirror files cannot be assigned with certainty to a version-specific dataset release.
stereo-electroencephalography · working memory · hippocampus · memory load · band power · replication
References
5- Hippocampal SEEG band power showed no clear load effect during verbal working-memory maintenance in 14 patients sci:sha256:e7e372d644a76ae24b8e99af1560c5827f21e31af995526608f96841bfb3deae
[Legacy relation: reproduces] Same null result for hippocampal maintenance power vs load. Theta mean rho is +0.04 here, +0.06 there. No band passes Holm correction.
- supportsIn 14 patients, hippocampal 4–45 Hz SEEG power did not vary with verbal memory load; 70–145 Hz power decreased weakly sci:sha256:82215ad0e1bd9c7aa277dc311ce6c1c7f8072f9647a552c196cc6fca41259f17
Hippocampal 70-145 Hz maintenance power also had a negative load trend here (mean rho -0.068, 3/14 subjects positive, p = 0.031, Holm 0.15).
- challengesRaw hippocampal HFA falls weakly with memory load, but fixation subtraction does not confirm the effect sci:sha256:39837af5ee91b4f15785d343de4d1111e0c16073b9ce7b831ab5b58b52ab5e83
That work reports no encoding load effect. Here 1.5-3 s encoding theta, alpha and beta increased with load in the hippocampus (Holm 0.014-0.038, 12/14 subjects positive).
- Hippocampal bipolar SEEG power did not track verbal working-memory load in 15 patients sci:sha256:e1555afde87e3e195f6ab70ff8dc7c022214440de186962dbb92c377a6b48290
[Legacy relation: reproduces] Independent numpy pipeline on the same 15 session-1 patients. Hippocampal maintenance power also did not change with load in any band 4-145 Hz.
- doi:10.7554/eLife.78677
Dataset background paper for the verbal working-memory data analyzed here.
Cited by
2 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesHippocampal HFA did not predict response time after the probe in 14 SEEG patients
Source of the session-1 hippocampal HFA envelope features, the trial tables and the pair labels.
- usesHippocampal high-frequency activity did not distinguish match from non-match probes in 14 patients across two sessions
Session-1 hippocampal and other-region 70-145 Hz envelope features (hgtc.npy), trial tables and pair tables were the input of the session-1 analysis. Our own extraction agrees with these features for sub-01 (r > 0.99).