{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a335c","dataset_id":"ds004520","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Edward Ester","Paige Pytel"],"bids_version":"1.8.0","contact_info":["Edward Ester"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004520.v1.0.1","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":33,"ages":[],"age_min":null,"age_max":null,"age_mean":null,"species":null,"sex_distribution":null,"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds004520","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"8ddd4d45deed5393253f12ed369b6c6d44e7aa19ee520f082fe4831177b629d9","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Changes in behavioral priority influence the accessibility of working memory content - Experiment 2\n","readme":"Preprocessed data from Experiment 2 of Ester & Pytel \"Changes in behavioral priority influence the accessibility of working memory content\". Analytic scripts for this project can be found on OSF: https://osf.io/gtd5f/. Note that to analyze the BIDS data, you'll need to modify the analysis scripts to read in the BIDS .set files rather than the expected .mat files. See the OSF wiki for more information","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"Paige Pytel","sessions":[],"size_bytes":11175907697,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["Retrocue"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:26:42.007211+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2023-03-04T23:57:19.246Z","dataset_modified_at":"2023-03-06T17:32:21.000Z"},"total_files":33,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds004520","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","task-Retrocue_events.json"]},"nemar_citation_count":3,"computed_title":"Changes in behavioral priority influence the accessibility of working memory content - Experiment 2","nchans_counts":[{"val":62,"count":33}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":250.0,"count":33}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.307816+00:00","tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Memory"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.6,"modality":0.6,"type":0.8},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot by research aim is the digit-span working memory dataset (few-shot: \"EEG, pupillometry... digit span task\"), labeled Type=Memory. That example shows the convention that classic working-memory paradigms (even if they involve attention/cognitive-load manipulations) map to the catalog Type label \"Memory\". For Modality, that few-shot is Auditory because digits are \"presented auditorily\"; by analogy, for the present dataset we should pick the stimulus modality that typically defines the retro-cue WM paradigm (generally visually presented items and a visual cue). For Pathology, multiple few-shots with non-clinical recruitment are labeled Healthy, guiding the convention that datasets without an explicit diagnosis/clinical recruitment are assigned Pathology=Healthy.","metadata_analysis":"Key quoted metadata indicating a working-memory retro-cue experiment:\n1) Title: \"Changes in behavioral priority influence the accessibility of working memory content - Experiment 2\".\n2) README: \"Preprocessed data from Experiment 2 of Ester & Pytel 'Changes in behavioral priority influence the accessibility of working memory content'\".\n3) Tasks: \"Retrocue\".\nMetadata does not explicitly state any diagnosis/clinical recruitment (only \"Subjects: 33\"), and does not explicitly state stimulus channel (e.g., visual/auditory/tactile) beyond the task name \"Retrocue\".","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: no clinical group is mentioned (e.g., only \"Subjects: 33\"), and no diagnosis terms appear in title/README.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: datasets lacking explicit clinical recruitment are labeled \"Healthy\".\n- Alignment: ALIGN (no conflicting explicit pathology facts).\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: Task is \"Retrocue\" but gives no explicit stimulus modality (no mention of auditory/visual/tactile stimuli).\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: Modality should follow stimulus channel; retro-cue working-memory tasks are typically visual in EEG cognitive experiments.\n- Alignment: PARTIAL/WEAK (few-shot provides convention, but metadata lacks explicit modality facts; thus we rely on contextual inference).\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: focus is \"working memory content\" (in both title and README) and task is \"Retrocue\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: working-memory paradigms map to Type=\"Memory\" (as in the digit span few-shot).\n- Alignment: ALIGN (metadata explicitly references working memory; matches few-shot convention).","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates and selection:\n\nPathology:\n- Candidate 1: Healthy\n  Evidence: no disorder/diagnosis mentioned; only \"Subjects: 33\" and a cognitive WM title.\n- Candidate 2: Unknown\n  Evidence: participant health status not explicitly stated as \"healthy\".\nHead-to-head: Healthy is preferred because absence of any clinical recruitment language aligns with catalog convention for normative cognitive experiments.\nConfidence basis: limited explicit evidence (negative evidence only: lack of diagnosis), hence moderate confidence.\n\nModality:\n- Candidate 1: Visual\n  Evidence: task name \"Retrocue\" strongly implies a standard retro-cue visual working-memory paradigm in cognitive EEG.\n- Candidate 2: Unknown\n  Evidence: no explicit stimulus description (no quoted mention of visual/auditory/tactile).\nHead-to-head: Visual is slightly stronger due to task-paradigm inference, but evidence is indirect, so confidence is modest.\n\nType:\n- Candidate 1: Memory\n  Evidence quotes: \"working memory content\" (title) and \"working memory content\" (README); task \"Retrocue\" is a working-memory accessibility/priority manipulation.\n- Candidate 2: Attention\n  Evidence: \"behavioral priority\" and accessibility could be construed as attentional prioritization within WM.\nHead-to-head: Memory is stronger because the explicit construct named is working memory, and retro-cue paradigms are canonical WM tasks.\nConfidence basis: two explicit WM quotes + strong few-shot convention match (digit-span WM labeled Memory)."}},"total_duration_s":198.0,"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"3557b68bca409f28","metadata_hash":"237c1b138f23c619","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:40.872789+00:00"},"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.97,"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":"Ester2023_Changes"}}