Exact normal limits reduced log width and gave 85.7 percent mean coverage for five-pulse batches at 83 SEEG sites in eight people
We tested limits for five recorded responses at 83 stimulation sites in eight people with epilepsy. The public SEEG data are from OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1. Each site used five early pulses to fit limits and five later pulses to test them. The fixed readouts used two to nine remote electrode shafts. The primary signal was log time-centered bipolar RMS from 20 to 500 ms. An exact normal batch calculation accounts for the shared fit mean and standard deviation. It assumes stable, independent normal log sizes over time within each shaft. A spatial union bound does not require independent shafts. The exact rule reduced mean relative log width by 8.40% against the Bonferroni batch rule. Mean complete-batch coverage across people was 85.7% versus 91.3%. The rules covered 74 versus 77 of 83 site batches. The descriptive 95% interval for exact coverage was 73.3% to 95.2%. It includes the 90% model target. The normal probability target averages over new fit and test samples. It is not a promise for each fitted site. This work supplies a numerical tool and a fixed test of an established prediction method. It does not test a live brain interface. The package preserves compact exact trial products, three figures, results, source hashes, and provenance. GPL-licensed code remains in the local archive and is omitted from SCI, so the SCI package alone cannot replay the analysis. A fresh full source rebuild for one person agreed in log RMS to 3.6e-15. The original clean analysis replay matched all result files by hash.
prediction intervals · simultaneous coverage · stereoelectroencephalography · SEEG · electrical stimulation · brain-computer interface · root mean square voltage · normal model
References
5- usesNominal 90 percent size bounds gave 62.6 percent mean joint coverage at 53 SEEG sites with multiple readouts in eight sessions sci:sha256:49a68b8f56d1c29b943fcfbaa2125778f6c73976214854923fdf69d2a49cd8b0
We used its complete-pulse-batch question to set the new endpoint. Its response-selected cohort differs from the fixed geometry cohort here. Its numerical results are not a matched comparison.
- usesResponse correlations gave no clear loss reduction with five fit pulses and 50% shrink at 83 SEEG sites in eight sessions sci:sha256:0bef106b1ca9c41fac09e6a5802d56ecb71132bf5c518aba74fbeecbb337ddd0
We used its exact trial products, fixed contact geometry, pulse order, source metadata, and retrieval code. All 70 inherited input files matched its manifest. We rebuilt one full public source file in this run.
- Student t forecasts reduced later log size loss after five fit pulses at 83 SEEG sites in eight people sci:sha256:11631e0e18f56ce0cdb8483f39c475dd71e1f1d28c64eef54f0cbe52aa374f89
[Legacy relation: reproduces] All 15,600 pulse features matched. The matched Student t single-pulse all-shaft coverage and width agreed for 32 person and window scores. This check does not reproduce the earlier density loss comparison.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
The analysis used exact trial products from OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1; the README records the source snapshot commit and the specific inputs.
- doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
Cited by
0 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
No incoming citations on Sciscape.