{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a332a","dataset_id":"ds004229","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Maria Mittag","Eric Larson","Maggie Clarke","Samu Taulu","Patricia K. Kuhl"],"bids_version":"1.7.0","contact_info":["Eric Larson"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":true,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004229.v1.0.3","datatypes":["meg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":2,"ages":[15],"age_min":15,"age_max":15,"age_mean":15.0,"species":null,"sex_distribution":null,"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds004229","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"cb0e1738512723429b33d8b9cf671c26fac48c7d1ee2d4bb699bdc1e89164fdc","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"amnoise","readme":"ILABS amnoise MEG BIDS dataset\n==============================\nThis dataset contains MEG data from a single infant subject. For more\ninformation, see the following publications, which should be cited if you use\nthis data:\n- Mittag, M., Larson, E., Clarke, M., Taulu, S., & Kuhl, P. K. (2021). Auditory deficits in infants at risk for dyslexia during a linguistic sensitive period predict future language. NeuroImage: Clinical, 30, 102578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2021.102578\n- Mittag, M., Larson, E., Taulu, S., Clarke, M., & Kuhl, P. K. (2022). Reduced Theta Sampling in Infants at Risk for Dyslexia across the Sensitive Period of Native Phoneme Learning. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1180. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031180\nThe data were converted with MNE-BIDS:\n- Appelhoff, S., Sanderson, M., Brooks, T., Vliet, M., Quentin, R., Holdgraf, C., Chaumon, M., Mikulan, E., Tavabi, K., Höchenberger, R., Welke, D., Brunner, C., Rockhill, A., Larson, E., Gramfort, A. and Jas, M. (2019). MNE-BIDS: Organizing electrophysiological data into the BIDS format and facilitating their analysis. Journal of Open Source Software 4: (1896). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01896\n- Niso, G., Gorgolewski, K. J., Bock, E., Brooks, T. L., Flandin, G., Gramfort, A., Henson, R. N., Jas, M., Litvak, V., Moreau, J., Oostenveld, R., Schoffelen, J., Tadel, F., Wexler, J., Baillet, S. (2018). MEG-BIDS, the brain imaging data structure extended to magnetoencephalography. Scientific Data, 5, 180110. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.110","recording_modality":["meg"],"senior_author":"Patricia K. Kuhl","sessions":["20000101"],"size_bytes":1908935731,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["amnoise","noise"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:26:19.259612+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2022-08-01T18:25:31.485Z","dataset_modified_at":"2023-11-03T18:30:43.000Z"},"total_files":3,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds004229","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.json","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"1c09eb3521330f9a","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T10:35:15.001504+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Dyslexia"],"modality":["Auditory"],"type":["Perception"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.75,"modality":0.8,"type":0.6},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"For Modality and Type conventions, the few-shot example “Subcortical responses to music and speech are alike…” maps continuous sound listening paradigms to Modality=\"Auditory\" and Type=\"Perception\" (auditory encoding/processing focus). Similarly, the “EEG: Three-Stim Auditory Oddball…” example shows that when the stimulus channel is tones/sounds, Modality is labeled Auditory even if other components exist. For Pathology conventions, the braille/visually-deprived example shows that recruitment based on a specific sensory/clinical condition is labeled by the condition (Other there). Here, recruitment is explicitly tied to dyslexia risk/deficits, aligning best with the allowed Pathology label \"Dyslexia\" rather than \"Healthy\".","metadata_analysis":"Key quoted metadata facts:\n1) Population/condition focus: \"Auditory deficits in infants at risk for dyslexia\" and \"Reduced Theta Sampling in Infants at Risk for Dyslexia\" (titles of cited publications).\n2) Developmental population: \"MEG data from a single infant subject\".\n3) Auditory stimulus channel: dataset name includes \"amnoise\" and the cited paper titles explicitly concern \"Auditory deficits\" and dyslexia-related auditory/phoneme learning.\nThese statements indicate (a) an infant developmental participant selected for dyslexia risk, and (b) an auditory-processing paradigm.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: \"single infant subject\" and papers about \"infants at risk for dyslexia\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when recruitment is tied to a specific disorder/condition, label the condition (e.g., schizophrenia dataset labeled Schizophrenia/Psychosis; visually deprived labeled Other).\n- Alignment: ALIGN (both point away from Healthy and toward a dyslexia-related cohort).\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: \"Auditory deficits...\" and dataset name \"amnoise\" (auditory noise implied).\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: sound-listening paradigms are Modality=\"Auditory\".\n- Alignment: ALIGN.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: \"Auditory deficits\" and \"Native Phoneme Learning\" / \"Reduced Theta Sampling\" (auditory temporal sampling/phoneme-related processing).\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: studies focused on sensory encoding/processing of auditory stimuli map to Type=\"Perception\" (e.g., music vs speech ABR example).\n- Alignment: PARTIAL (could also be framed as Learning due to \"phoneme learning\", but the dominant construct appears to be auditory processing/encoding deficits).","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates and decision:\n\nPathology:\n1) Dyslexia — Evidence: \"infants at risk for dyslexia\" (both cited publication titles); dataset is explicitly framed around dyslexia risk.\n2) Development — Evidence: \"single infant subject\" indicates developmental age, but the recruitment/focus is dyslexia-risk rather than general development.\nWinner: Dyslexia. Alignment status: aligned.\nConfidence justification: supported by 2 explicit dyslexia-risk quotes (publication titles) but no direct participants.tsv details here and only one subject.\n\nModality:\n1) Auditory — Evidence: \"Auditory deficits...\"; dataset name \"amnoise\" (auditory noise); dyslexia papers in this context target auditory processing.\n2) Unknown — would apply if stimulus channel were not inferable, but it is.\nWinner: Auditory. Alignment status: aligned.\nConfidence justification: 2+ clear auditory-related metadata phrases.\n\nType:\n1) Perception — Evidence: \"Auditory deficits\" and theta sampling in a \"Native Phoneme Learning\" sensitive period suggests auditory sensory processing/encoding as a primary construct.\n2) Learning — Evidence: explicit phrase \"Native Phoneme Learning\" could imply learning as the main construct.\nWinner: Perception (auditory processing/deficits framing is strongest). Alignment status: partial (Perception vs Learning ambiguity).\nConfidence justification: type inferred from titles only (no task description/abstract provided)."}},"nemar_citation_count":0,"computed_title":"amnoise","nchans_counts":[{"val":332,"count":2}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1200.0,"count":2}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.307233+00:00","total_duration_s":1192.9983333333334,"author_year":"Mittag2022","canonical_name":null}}