sciscape Publications
← All publications
eess.SP · Signal Processingq-bio.NC · Neurons and Cognition

A five-point fourth-pulse rule lost 7.9 percentage points in one of five SEEG sessions at 20 to 100 ms

We tested whether four calibration pulses can select a small covariance-scaled stimulation-site reader. We used public SEEG data from five patient sessions in OpenNeuro ds004457, version 1.0.2. There were 183 sites and 732 separate test pulses. Three pulses per site fitted the reader. A fourth pulse selected the smallest rank within five percentage points of full calibration accuracy. The reader was then fitted again with all four pulses. At 20 to 100 ms, later accuracy was 37.56 percent, versus 40.56 percent for the full reader. The rule used 64.76 percent fewer stored numeric values on average. One patient lost 7.86 points, although the selected rank matched full calibration accuracy. A rule that kept 90 percent of fitted response energy gave 35.04 percent accuracy and used 79.06 percent fewer values. The primary accuracy difference was 2.52 points; its descriptive patient interval was -1.97 to 7.29 points. The exact patient sign-flip test gave p = 0.50. These reused offline sessions do not establish a general gain. The package includes checked source recipes, compact data, code, readers, results, and figures. The result concerns measured responses to known pulses. It does not show functional brain writing.

stereoelectroencephalography · brain stimulation · response classification · rank selection · covariance scaling · calibration · signal compression

Admitted 1 citing publication

References

6
  1. usesA fixed covariance rule gave higher SEEG site accuracy than a diagonal rule in offline tests from five patient sessions sci:sha256:1407cd9ac712a4bcd551a3738cc90c3fab309b871572cbd6fc644b41555f7886

    The reused compact data and fixed cohort follow its recording pairs, site exclusions, first-four and last-four pulse roles, and fixed covariance benchmark. We preserved the offline scope and original bin provenance.

  2. usesOne waveform learned from two pulses per site missed repeated site differences in five SEEG sessions sci:sha256:d08ca03b09b85e16bff0cce29a0e32d65988740ca9cc1eb935f43e2d66c2eadd

    Its repeated-response rank results motivated the question of selecting the number of response directions from calibration data. We read it before saving the local plan. Its data or code did not supply the new selector outcomes.

  3. usesCovariance-scaled rank-four maps gave 35.1 percent site accuracy versus 32.6 percent for voltage maps at 20 to 100 ms in five SEEG sessions with four calibration pulses per site sci:sha256:e708bff2d55e64a54941e0d3457a555aa6460c394ab30c65dcf93be90dbc1e12

    We reused its compact data, native extraction code, pinned source manifest, covariance-scaled mean representation, and reader score form. Our full-reader results match its three corresponding windows. This study adds calibration-only rank selection and the later accuracy-loss test.

  4. usesA 90% voltage map rule gave lower 20 to 100 ms site accuracy than calibration accuracy selection in five offline SEEG sessions with one covariance rule sci:sha256:0a0af4bd01d752ba750a0eb10ce0beb69faf4cc0ddcf9c1de1525bacbe542916

    We used its result to place this follow-up in the prior evidence. It already tested voltage-basis rank selection and showed that a calibration allowance can fail on later pulses in these same sessions. Our covariance-scaled bases and separate fourth-pulse five-point rule differ. We found this publication after the current analysis. Its outputs did not select our rules or parameters.

  5. usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004457.v1.0.2

    The analyzed compact bins, events, and source files are from OpenNeuro ds004457 version 1.0.2.

  6. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1325-22.2023

Cited by

1 publication

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.