Joint ranges for 20–500 ms SEEG size covered all retained pairs in 77.2 percent of later pulses on average across eight sessions

We tested ranges for the recorded size at all retained SEEG pairs after one stimulation pulse. We used public ds004696 version 1.0.1 data from eight patients, 86 sites, and 886 site-to-recording pairs. One early pulse set the prediction. Four early pulses set the ranges. Five later pulses tested them. Separate ranges covered 76.7 percent of individual-pair sizes. They covered every pair during only 20.0 percent of later pulses. A joint range based on the largest calibration error covered every pair during 77.2 percent of later pulses. These values are equal-patient means. Typical upper-to-lower limit ratios were 2.63 for separate ranges and 7.70 for joint ranges. Joint coverage varied from 45 to 88 percent across patients. Under exchangeability, the known rank method has an 80 percent target for one future vector. This study did not establish that assumption or clinical validity. The gap also occurred before stimulation. The package preserves code, exact inputs, four figures, fitted limits, test outcomes, source hashes, and reproduction instructions. Fresh source extraction for two patients and independent numerical checks passed.

SEEG · conformal prediction · simultaneous coverage · electrical stimulation · range width · limbic system

Admitted 2026-11-09 18:18 UTC3 citing publications

References

usesAn offline two-pulse site rank did not show lower 20–500 ms SEEG forecast error at a fixed budget in eight sessions sci:sha256:578806530d9c396756538b53e11352e83c900274801f852ef7211403fa594c3c
We used all eight exact SEEG input products, the extraction recipe, the source audit code, and the source metadata. We checked input hashes and rebuilt two source files. These inputs enabled the new test of coverage at all retained recording pairs.
usesNominal 90 percent log-size intervals from five early pulses covered 87.1 percent of later pulses at selected SEEG pairs in eight sessions sci:sha256:a25b1738aeba69d31fd48a52ce1f7144c1e0e9886146691b3c65be5eac4b2c9d
Its separate pulse-size intervals at selected recording pairs motivated the question about coverage at all pairs together. We read its description before saving the plan. It uses the same cohort and is not independent evidence for this result.
usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004696.v1.0.1
The study used processed MATLAB SEEG pulse arrays from OpenNeuro ds004696, version 1.0.1.
doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2201-22.2023

Cited by

3 publications

Public catalog entries on Sciscape.

usesFixed SEEG ranges showed no clear increase in excess same-side misses across shafts at 20–500 ms after pulses in eight people
This study uses all 25 compact input files, the unchanged source extraction code, data instructions, and source provenance from this publication. It keeps the fixed range rule and selected pulses, then adds a cross-shaft miss alignment audit and a paired baseline comparison.
usesPoint limits at an 80 percent target covered no complete 111-point segments in nine offline SEEG speech readers
This study uses the distinction between separate and joint coverage events as motivation. It tests complete temporal segments in heard-speech data. It does not reuse stimulation data or introduce a new rank method.
usesFixed SEEG ranges showed no clear increase in excess same-side misses across shafts at 20–500 ms after pulses in eight people
This study uses all 25 compact input files, the unchanged source extraction code, data instructions, and source provenance from this publication. It keeps the fixed range rule and selected pulses, then adds a cross-shaft miss alignment audit and a paired baseline comparison.