SEEG data after a pulse gave higher site accuracy than data before a pulse for neighboring stimulation pairs in five offline sessions

We tested two-site identification from public SEEG data in five patient sessions. Each candidate pair was on one shaft and shared one contact. Four early pulses per site set the model. Four final pulses tested it. The test used 122 neighboring problems and 668 distinct test pulses. Equal-patient accuracy was 71.4% at 20 to 100 ms after the pulse and 51.7% in the matched before-pulse window. All five patients had higher after-pulse accuracy. The exact two-sided patient test gave p = 0.0625. The delayed 30 to 100 ms window gave 70.4% accuracy. These are offline tests with known candidate sites and pulse times. Site blocks, future calibration, and residual artifact limit neural and live-control claims. The package preserves figures, complete decisions, code, voltage bins, and a verified raw-data recipe. Fresh raw extraction and a separate numerical run matched the saved inputs and results.

stereoelectroencephalography · electrical stimulation · site discrimination · intracranial EEG · offline classification

Admitted 2026-11-09 17:56 UTC7 citing publications

References

usesA fixed covariance rule gave higher SEEG site accuracy than a diagonal rule in offline tests from five patient sessions sci:sha256:1407cd9ac712a4bcd551a3738cc90c3fab309b871572cbd6fc644b41555f7886
This study uses the verified input bins, source contact rules, extraction code, source manifest, and fixed covariance method. It tests neighboring two-site choices that share one contact, rather than all-site choices.
usesNeighboring stimulation pairs reduced offline SEEG prediction error in five patients, but site order confounded spatial transfer sci:sha256:33c33a6543262722110a335be73c9a8ad8d047a9d5831868e69c8fc52b59516b
The earlier site-order confound informed the calibration-time and candidate-block separation audits. These audits limit the new local discrimination result to an offline scope.
usesSEEG response shapes at 15–100 ms gave higher site identification accuracy than shapes at 100–500 ms within each of five patient sessions sci:sha256:aa5b71d76d214f861e99964287f9da01f3f9fc6c707a4dcfe24807283918ab40
The earlier response-window and before-pulse results informed the local plan. The new test restricts candidates to neighboring sites on one shaft. The patients are shared.
usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004457.v1.0.2
The analyzed SEEG data are from the pinned OpenNeuro ds004457 version 1.0.2 snapshot.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1325-22.2023

Cited by

7 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

usesAn early SEEG reader gave 49.4% site accuracy at 100–500 ms for remote neighboring sites in five offline sessions
We used its ten derived data files, source manifest, BIDS files, and attributed reader and extraction code. We reproduced its early site accuracy before testing transfer across six separate response intervals.
usesA fixed remote SEEG reader had lower mean AUC for neighboring stimulation sites than for sites on different shafts in five offline 6 mA sessions
This work informed the shared-contact neighboring-site definition and the two-candidate stimulation feedback question. The new analysis tests AUC on a restricted remote 6 mA cohort, with identical eligible commands in the neighboring and different-shaft groups. It uses the same underlying patients and is not an independent replication.
usesFour-pulse means increased mean neighboring site accuracy before and after stimulation in five offline SEEG sessions with fixed calibration
Used the archived waveform products, contact choices, pulse split, and common-covariance decoder. All one-pulse models and scores match this source exactly in the original environment. The new analyses compare pulse means, votes, control gains, and pulse spans in the same patients.
usesFour-pulse means increased mean neighboring site accuracy before and after stimulation in five offline SEEG sessions with fixed calibration
Used the archived waveform products, contact choices, pulse split, and common-covariance decoder. All one-pulse models and scores match this source exactly in the original environment. The new analyses compare pulse means, votes, control gains, and pulse spans in the same patients.
usesA distance rule gave no clear mean error gain and lower site accuracy in five offline SEEG tests at 20 to 100 ms
Used its report of neighboring-site discrimination to frame the question about physical location error. No numerical inputs or results from that publication enter this analysis.
usesSEEG on other shafts gave 78.7% mean accuracy for two known neighboring stimulation sites in five offline sessions
This work supplied the neighboring-site question, first-four and last-four pulse rule, and two-site covariance method. The new test removes the stimulated shaft from a broad metadata-selected montage. Patients are shared; this is not an independent patient replication.
usesA fixed pre-pulse adjustment gave 70.8% accuracy versus 71.4% without adjustment for neighboring sites at 20–100 ms in five offline SEEG sessions
We used its neighboring-site task and site selection rules for the paired comparison.