{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3354","dataset_id":"ds004502","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Jose M. G. Penalver","David Lopez-Garcia","Blanca Aguado-Lopez","Carlos Gonzalez-Garcia","Maria Ruz"],"bids_version":"1.2","contact_info":["José M. G. Peñalver"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004502.v1.0.1","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":48,"ages":[25,20,21,27,26,18,18,19,19,20,18,25,22,23,18,19,19,23,23,18,25,18,23,26,21,27,19,19,28,22,23,25,20,24,25,21,25,18],"age_min":18,"age_max":28,"age_mean":21.842105263157894,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"m":16,"f":21,"o":1},"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds004502","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"b43c9b5e73e67dc0ec1b1664978e8b3fb8d8034f7c038fc18232697442f5a2a5","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Anticipatory differences between Attention and Expectation","readme":null,"recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"Maria Ruz","sessions":[],"size_bytes":63828222669,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["attexp"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:26:40.920526+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2023-02-16T21:52:37.827Z","dataset_modified_at":"2023-03-06T17:05:06.000Z"},"total_files":48,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds004502","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"3557b68bca409f28","metadata_hash":"be1c21a23c05c191","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:40.872789+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Unknown"],"type":["Attention"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.8,"modality":0.5,"type":0.7},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot convention is the DPX cognitive control task example (labeled Type=Attention): it shows that tasks framed around attentional control/expectancy are mapped to the Type label \"Attention\" rather than being categorized by mechanics. The few-shot set also shows that when no clinical diagnosis is stated and participants are typical adults, Pathology is labeled \"Healthy\" (e.g., multiple healthy volunteer datasets). For Modality, few-shot labels rely on explicit stimulus-channel descriptions (e.g., \"auditory oddball\"→Auditory; braille cells→Tactile); when stimulus channel is not stated, Modality should not be over-inferred.","metadata_analysis":"Key available metadata is sparse. The title indicates the construct studied: \"Anticipatory differences between Attention and Expectation\". Participant metadata shows a typical young-adult cohort with no disorder mentioned: \"Subjects: 48\" and \"Age range: 18-28\" with sex counts (\"Sex: {'m': 16, 'f': 21, 'o': 1}\"). Task name is non-descriptive of stimulus channel: \"tasks\": [\"attexp\"]. No readme/task description/events are provided to identify whether stimuli are visual, auditory, etc.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata says nothing about any diagnosis/clinical recruitment (quotes: \"Subjects: 48\"; \"Age range: 18-28\"), suggesting a normative sample. Few-shot pattern suggests labeling such samples as \"Healthy\" when no pathology is stated. ALIGN.\nModality: Metadata does not state any stimulus type/channel (only \"tasks\": [\"attexp\"]). Few-shot pattern suggests assigning modality only when stimuli are explicit; otherwise use \"Unknown\". ALIGN.\nType: Metadata explicitly emphasizes \"Attention and Expectation\" in the title (\"Anticipatory differences between Attention and Expectation\"). Few-shot convention maps attention/expectancy control paradigms to Type=\"Attention\" (e.g., DPX Cog Ctl Task). ALIGN.","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates and selection:\n- Pathology: (1) Healthy vs (2) Unknown. Evidence for Healthy: no disorder terms + typical young-adult sample (\"Age range: 18-28\"; \"Subjects: 48\"). Winner: Healthy. Alignment: aligned with few-shot convention.\n- Modality: (1) Unknown vs (2) Visual. Evidence for Visual is only weak inference from common attention/expectation paradigms; no explicit stimulus info. Evidence for Unknown: lack of any quoted stimulus-channel description (only \"attexp\"). Winner: Unknown. Alignment: aligned with few-shot convention.\n- Type: (1) Attention vs (2) Other/Decision-making. Evidence for Attention: title directly names the construct (\"Attention and Expectation\"; \"Anticipatory\"). Winner: Attention. Alignment: aligned with few-shot convention.\nConfidence justification: Pathology has 2 explicit metadata quotes supporting a non-clinical cohort; Modality has no direct evidence; Type has a direct title-based statement of the construct."}},"nemar_citation_count":3,"computed_title":"Anticipatory differences between Attention and Expectation","nchans_counts":[{"val":63,"count":44},{"val":65,"count":4}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1000.0,"count":44},{"val":500.0,"count":4}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.307712+00:00","total_duration_s":333443.5,"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.54,"name_meta":{"suggested_at":"2026-04-14T10:18:35.343Z","model":"openai/gpt-5.2 + openai/gpt-5.4-mini + deterministic_fallback"},"name_source":"author_year","author_year":"Penalver2023"}}