A four-mode background model had a mean 0.62% increase in 20 to 480 ms SEEG template error after contact order reversal in eight STReEF patients at ridge strength 0.1

We tested whether a model fitted only to voltage before stimulation could improve a five-pulse response template. The public STReEF sample had eight SEEG patients, 96 selected conditions, and 480 later test pulses. Recorded contact order reversed between fit and test groups. The primary map used four input modes and ridge strength 0.1. All fit data preceded each test block. Mean scaled response error in the 20 to 480 ms window increased by 0.62 percent. The descriptive 95 percent patient interval ran from a 0.39 percent decrease to a 1.76 percent increase. Thus this fixed model did not show a clear response benefit. Correctly aligned inputs performed better than shifted inputs, but this advantage did not establish a gain over the template. Matched background targets and an exact error identity help explain the result. This is a new method test on a reused cohort. The package preserves code, source versions and hashes, voltage coordinates, models, predictions, scores, three figures, and replay instructions. All source range checks and 22 numerical replay artifacts matched.

SEEG · electrical stimulation · brain-computer interfaces · response prediction · background voltage · ridge regression · STReEF

Admitted 2026-11-09 20:19 UTC1 citing publication

References

usesFour signed pre-pulse modes per pair raised mean relative 20–100 ms SEEG forecast error by 19.2% at 94 later sites in five sessions with ridge strength 0.1 sci:sha256:cff1a65f787100749ac1ffac63d759ad314b24838dfcad17b00541495cbdf570
Its different-dataset result informed the fixed four-input and ridge comparison. We fitted the present map to background voltage alone. No code or data from this publication entered the present scores.
usesSlow SEEG energy before a pulse had a mean rank correlation of 0.164 with later template error in eight STReEF patients sci:sha256:69de30dded254486ecf29150ebe07c78a5b9f3ca73e1487bc58407ae1c9eb2bb
This source supplied the fixed 96-condition STReEF sample, metadata, version-pinned source objects, raw range receipts, and extraction helpers. We retrieved all 960 raw ranges again and tested new background-to-response forecasts on the same cohort.
usesA five-pulse test did not establish a cross-shaft noise covariance change after stimulation in eight SEEG patients sci:sha256:ac64ed2ad4f89c67d3e451fc116295b7696f34f36ea9939509de83e2f450d198
The direct input inherited its fixed sample and cosine-coordinate helper through this source. We retained the cosine helper and its license chain; we did not use its response model.
usesA fixed pre-pulse voltage model had a mean 3.8% error increase at later sites in five SEEG sessions sci:sha256:75c9b7d9135d45ecf7f9a8eb06ff6798fe1e048c1713980e8ef4f61e237bf529
Its different-dataset result informed the matched background control. No code or data from this publication entered the present scores.
usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005448.v1.0.0
Source dataset for the eight-patient STReEF sample and voltage recordings.
doi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2025.100274
doi:10.1007/s12021-022-09567-6

Cited by

1 publication

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

usesA background model lowered mean voltage error with an early reference and increased mean shape error at 20 to 100 ms after five fit pulses at 86 sites in eight HAPwave SEEG sessions
Its background-to-response transfer test provides context for the matched before-pulse control and the dependence of results on model and target. This study uses a different source and fit.