Peak times from four pulse means agreed within 5 ms more often after limbic stimulation than before it in seven tested SEEG groups under fixed source correction
We tested early peak time repeatability in one public SEEG stimulation group from each of seven patients. Two pulses selected contacts with large waveform energy. Two separate four pulse means gave timing estimates. Agreement within 5 ms was 79.56 percent after stimulation and 12.95 percent before it. The mean increase was 66.61 percentage points. Its conditional 95 percent patient bootstrap interval was 48.53 to 81.96 points. The exact two sided patient sign flip probability was 0.015625. All seven patients had an increase. The test used 137 contacts and all 1,575 partitions per group. Four planned checks retained the increase. Exact voltage windows, code, source records, results, and reproduction instructions are preserved. The source correction used all exported trials and stayed fixed. Only seven source-order groups were tested. The result measures timing repeatability after that correction; it does not measure neural conduction delay.
SEEG · electrical stimulation · peak time · repeatability · evoked potentials · limbic system · pulse partitions · patient bootstrap
References
5- usesFive pulses increased contact rank agreement in seven limbic SEEG patients after fixed reference correction sci:sha256:fb9ca7f970f4224dd81ebaba6eab63e06a7b5abc7a4aaa26295a74935abc6b9d
This publication supplied the exact full example voltage arrays, source hashes, and group and pulse eligibility records. We extracted matched timing windows and tested peak times with separate selection and timing pulses. The same patients are used; this is not an independent cohort replication.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
The analyzed public SEEG derivatives are from OpenNeuro ds004696 version 1.0.1; the package preserves pinned source object versions and hashes.
- usesdoi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023
This is the source study for the public SEEG trial derivatives analyzed here.
- doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011105
Background on Canonical Response Parameterization; the present analysis instead uses an absolute sample peak and does not fit that model.
- doi:10.1111/epi.17528
Background work on trial variability during evoked potential mapping; this publication does not use its data or clinical labels.
Cited by
0 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
No incoming citations on Sciscape.