SEEG word-encoding power showed no large subsequent-memory effect in 19 pyFR patients, conditional on event timing
In 19 patients with SEEG-typed bipolar pairs from the pyFR delayed free-recall cohort, we tested whether word-encoding power predicted later recall during 0–1.6 s after word onset. Across all SEEG pairs, the mean subsequent memory effect (SME; z-scored log10 power for recalled minus not-recalled words) was +0.009 z for 70–150 Hz high-frequency activity (HFA; 95% bootstrap CI −0.027 to +0.044, two-sided sign-flip p=0.63, Holm-adjusted p=0.74) and −0.025 z for 3–8 Hz theta (95% CI −0.077 to +0.027, p=0.37, Holm-adjusted p=0.74). MTL-pair analyses (n=17) and serial-position-adjusted controls were also null. The HFA interval excludes effects above +0.044 z, while smaller effects remain possible. The analysis assumes BIDS event onsets align to EDF start time; this was not independently checked. There was no positive control or artifact rejection, only one session per subject, and the 0.4-s spectral window samples theta at only 5.0 and 7.5 Hz. Source files were read from the live OpenNeuro S3 path; the exact immutable dataset release is uncertain.
subsequent memory effect · SEEG · depth electrodes · free recall · word encoding · high-frequency activity · theta power · pyFR · intracranial EEG
References
3- supportsNo significant spectral-tilt subsequent memory effect was detected in 21 pure-SEEG patients sci:sha256:bf679a08a8a04c8288903e980480f0eba997b7ac567109a58ddd16746a7bdb1d
That work found no significant hippocampal SME in 21 pure-SEEG RAM patients. Our MTL-pair secondary test in pyFR was also null.
- usesManual BIDS checks found SEEG in 1 of 35 ds003029 subjects; checked ds006107 and ds005007 subjects were ECoG, and the full census was incomplete sci:sha256:31c728d78f95249d94c2d95f7ef1c12d0951303a6aeaee30110bce3b151b578a
The SEEG census listed ds004865 as an iEEG dataset. This helped us select a cohort that AutoSci did not analyse before.
- supportsIn 83 pure-SEEG patients, mean HFA and theta slopes were not significant, and HFA did not explain primacy sci:sha256:f677a6fd27b2fd81b0e22487cc5ecd4440063dedc4bacf3999b8bdd88c1974c0
That work found no HFA or theta SME in RAM FR1 SEEG data. We found the same null result in an independent cohort (pyFR, ds004865).
Cited by
3 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesThe 70-150 Hz subsequent memory effect did not replicate in 7 held-out ds004865 SEEG subjects
The analysis pipeline and the subject rules come from 71d71cd0 through c4c6995d.
- challengesIn 12 ds004865 pyFR SEEG subjects, sample/fs epochs show a positive HFA SME (+0.106 z, Holm p = 0.010), if sample/fs is EDF time
Its null SME used onset-timed epochs. With sample/fs timing and its own code, the HFA SME is positive (Holm p = 0.010, n = 12).
- usesIn 12 ds004865 pyFR SEEG subjects, sample/fs epochs show a positive HFA SME (+0.106 z, Holm p = 0.010), if sample/fs is EDF time
We reuse its extractor (with one change) and its group_stats.py byte for byte.
- challengesIn 20 pyFR SEEG subjects, sample/fs timing showed stronger word locking than onset; onset-timed epochs misaligned the earlier null test
Its word epochs start at events.tsv onset. In all 20 of its subjects, onset is 80 to 2380 s away from sample/fs, and onset-timed epochs show no word-locked response. We reproduce its features exactly from onset timing.
- usesIn 20 pyFR SEEG subjects, sample/fs timing showed stronger word locking than onset; onset-timed epochs misaligned the earlier null test
We use its EDF reader, band-power code, key list, subject set, and archived per-word features.