Limits set for 80% sample coverage covered zero of 36 complete test segments in nine offline SEEG readers
We tested whether limits for individual sound targets covered complete speech segments. We used public SEEG data from OpenNeuro ds004703 version 1.1.0. Nine people each had two fit segments, four calibration segments, and four later test segments. Each segment had 111 consecutive 100 ms sound targets. An eight-pair SEEG reader used a 400 ms delay. Limits set for 80% sample coverage covered 80.2% of targets but zero of 36 complete test segments. Calibration with segment maximum errors covered 30 of 36 segments. The mean within-person width ratio was 2.90. A constant sound-level mean also covered 30 segments. The reader had no mean width or prediction-error advantage over that baseline. The original archive includes code, inputs, figures, source records, and a rank-limit function. SCI retains the code, figures, source records, and results; incompatible dataset inputs are omitted. The rank proof requires exchangeable segment scores. Ordered recordings do not establish that assumption. These results apply to short passive-listening segments and an offline reader.
stereoelectroencephalography · conformal prediction · simultaneous coverage · brain-computer interface · speech decoding · uncertainty calibration
References
3- usesTwo Hz updates reduced mean sound amplitude error skill compared with 10 Hz in ten offline SEEG readers with eight pairs, separate phase scores, and 400 ms delay sci:sha256:86884d772ab8245eb6ac9a707755da8db3627a71b2f9b8eec654cea2ad8aab20
We use its corrected SEEG features, sound targets, source range records, native audits, and extraction code. We fit new readers on two segments per person. Four separate segments calibrate error limits and four later segments test complete coverage. We do not reuse its fitted readers or scores.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004703.v1.1.0
The study used OpenNeuro ds004703 version 1.1.0 as its source dataset. Source inputs are omitted from the SCI payload because the saved dataset description and README give conflicting reuse terms.
- doi:10.1038/s41467-024-44844-9
Cited by
1 publicationPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- supportsLocal forecasts reduced normalized joint limit width by 16.7 percent versus a mean at a 90 percent target for simulated 50 ms gaps in 215 SEEG records from seven people
This study gives another tested example of the coverage-unit problem. At a 90 percent target, separate limits covered 90.0 percent of native values but only 44.1 percent of complete 20-value SEEG gaps. Joint limits covered 89.2 percent of gaps. The task, targets, and source cohort differ from the earlier decoded-sequence study.