MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225372926 · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2022.04.007

Simultaneous stereo-EEG and high-density scalp EEG recordings to study the effects of intracerebral stimulation parameters

2022· letter· en· W4225372926 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Parmigiani, Ezequiel Mikulan, Simone Russo, Simone Sarasso, Flavia Maria Zauli, A Rubino, Anna Cattani, Matteo Fecchio, Davide Giampiccolo, Jacopo Lanzone, Piergiorgio d’Orio, Maria Del Vecchio, Pietro Avanzini, Lino Nobili, Ivana Sartori, Marcello Massimini, Andrea Pigorini

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain stimulation · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoelectroencephalographyElectroencephalographyScalpStimulationNeuroscienceTranscranial magnetic stimulationBrain stimulationEvoked potentialPsychologyMedicineEpilepsy surgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cortico-cortical evoked potentials (CCEPs) recorded by stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) are a valuable tool to investigate brain reactivity and effective connectivity. However, invasive recordings are spatially sparse since they depend on clinical needs. This sparsity hampers systematic comparisons across-subjects, the detection of the whole-brain effects of intracortical stimulation, as well as their relationships to the EEG responses evoked by non-invasive stimuli. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that CCEPs recorded by high-density electroencephalography (hd-EEG) provide additional information with respect SEEG alone and to provide an open, curated dataset to allow for further exploration of their potential. METHODS: The dataset encompasses SEEG and hd-EEG recordings simultaneously acquired during Single Pulse Electrical Stimulation (SPES) in drug-resistant epileptic patients (N = 36) in whom stimulations were delivered with different physical, geometrical, and topological parameters. Differences in CCEPs were assessed by amplitude, latency, and spectral measures. RESULTS: While invasively and non-invasively recorded CCEPs were generally correlated, differences in pulse duration, angle and stimulated cortical area were better captured by hd-EEG. Further, intracranial stimulation evoked site-specific hd-EEG responses that reproduced the spectral features of EEG responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Notably, SPES, albeit unperceived by subjects, elicited scalp responses that were up to one order of magnitude larger than the responses typically evoked by sensory stimulation in awake humans. CONCLUSIONS: CCEPs can be simultaneously recorded with SEEG and hd-EEG and the latter provides a reliable descriptor of the effects of SPES as well as a common reference to compare the whole-brain effects of intracortical stimulation to those of non-invasive transcranial or sensory stimulations in humans.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain stimulationSame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207