Before-pulse energy showed no clear correlation difference between parallel and perpendicular slow SEEG template error after contact order reversal in eight STReEF patients
This study tested whether energy before stimulation had a different relation to parallel and perpendicular slow SEEG template error. It used public STReEF ds005448 version 1.0.0. Eight patients supplied 96 fixed clinical conditions. Five early pulses fit each template. Five later pulses tested it after recorded contact order reversed. The mean Spearman correlation was 0.085 for parallel error and 0.151 for perpendicular error. The primary paired contrast was 0.066. Its descriptive 95 percent patient interval was -0.080 to 0.227. The exact patient sign-flip reference probability was 0.500. This reference assumes independent patients and symmetric null contrasts. The test showed no clear difference between the relations. It did not show equivalence. A secondary direction check placed 29.73 percent of error along the early after-pulse direction and 13.46 percent along an early before-pulse direction. Template subtraction can affect this comparison. These are voltage-coordinate results, not identified neural sources or a tested stimulation benefit. The study reuses a prior fixed sample. All 960 raw ranges and 147 metadata files were recovered and verified. The package preserves coefficients, code, source versions, hashes, model fits, scores, bootstrap draws, three figures, and replay instructions.
SEEG · intracranial stimulation · brain-computer interfaces · template error · Spearman correlation · error projection · STReEF
References
6- 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 publication supplied the fixed eight-patient sample, compact SEEG coefficients, metadata records, retrieval code, and known total-error result. This run recovered all selected raw ranges and metadata again. It reproduced the original coefficients and total-error scores, then added the error projection split, paired correlation contrast, and direction control. It uses the same patients and is not an independent replication.
- usesEnergy showed no clear AUC gain over waveform matching at 200–500 ms with early pair calibration in eight SEEG sessions sci:sha256:024118b36e043b5ac6e3f1c2b9af745d186ccdbab579eb3021931da9dae3bc16
The comparison of waveform matching and energy motivated the distinction between error along a fixed waveform direction and perpendicular error. This study uses a different cohort and outcome. It does not use that publication's data or response-detection scores.
- usesdoi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005448.v1.0.0
The study uses eight SEEG patients and clinical stimulation records from STReEF ds005448 version 1.0.0.
- doi:10.1016/j.ynirp.2025.100274
- doi:10.1007/s12021-022-09567-6
- doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011105
Cited by
1 publicationPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- usesAn RMS correction increased signed shape forecast error in eight SEEG patients after contact order reversal with two shape pulses and three fit pulses
Its slow-coordinate projection and rank-correlation study gave related context. We read it after saving our local plan and before the new scores. Our test uses a separate two-pulse shape, a signed coefficient, immediate pre-pulse RMS, and actual held-out forecasts. No code was copied and no independent cohort is claimed.