{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a337d","dataset_id":"ds004738","associated_paper_doi":"10.1016/j.brs.2024.01.005","authors":["Bahne H. Bahners","Roxanne Lofredi","Tilmann Sander","Alfons Schnitzler","Andrea A. Kuhn","Esther Florin"],"bids_version":"1.2.0","contact_info":null,"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds004738.v1.0.1","datatypes":["meg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":4,"ages":[],"age_min":null,"age_max":null,"age_mean":null,"species":null,"sex_distribution":null,"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"paper_url":"https://www.brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-861X(24)00005-6/pdf"},"funding":["Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), Project ID 424778381, TRR 295."],"ingestion_fingerprint":"02263ac53dad5b7c426c3e1adc2776a68cfba1171463d8f03c8bc9c4410fe0e9","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"sfb_meg_phantom (B04/C01)","readme":"This dataset is a part of the data used for the study: 'Bahners B.H., Lofredi R. , Sander T., Schnitzler A., Kuhn A.A., Florin E. Deep brain stimulation device-specific artefacts in MEG recordings. 2023, submitted. doi: tba'\nPlease use the latest version of the dataset.\nFor detailed information about measurement protocol please refer to doi: tba. Additional information about Neuromag Phantom measurement is provided below.\n--------------\nNeuromag Phantom Measurement\nMovement onset is recorded with an accelerometer and captured with MISC006-MISC008","recording_modality":["meg"],"senior_author":null,"sessions":["220426","220616"],"size_bytes":6587175047,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["dip13","dip13mov"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-05-31T16:15:52.755867+00:00","dataset_created_at":null,"dataset_modified_at":null},"total_files":25,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds004738","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README.md","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"aac4faca8acec07a","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T10:46:15.089336+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Other"],"modality":["Other"],"type":["Other"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.7,"modality":0.8,"type":0.8},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Closest few-shot match is the \"Phantom EEG Dataset with Motion, Muscle, and Eye Artifacts...\" example (phantom/non-human recordings aimed at methodology/artifact characterization rather than cognition). That example maps a phantom dataset to Pathology=Healthy by convention and Type to a non-cognitive category (it used Attention, but the key convention is that artifact/method datasets are not mapped to Perception/Memory/etc.). In the current dataset, the metadata explicitly mentions a phantom measurement and DBS device-specific artefacts, which is even more clearly a methods/artifact dataset; thus Type=Other is a better fit than any cognitive label.","metadata_analysis":"Key quoted metadata facts: (1) \"Deep brain stimulation device-specific artefacts in MEG recordings.\" (2) \"Neuromag Phantom Measurement\" (3) \"Movement onset is recorded with an accelerometer\". There is no mention of recruited patients/diagnoses/controls, and no explicit sensory stimulus/task paradigm beyond phantom measurement and motion onset capture.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata SAYS \"Neuromag Phantom Measurement\" (phantom, not a recruited clinical cohort). Few-shot pattern SUGGESTS phantom datasets may be labeled \"Healthy\" by convention (see phantom example). ALIGN/CONFLICT: partial conflict (phantom is not truly a healthy human cohort). Decision: choose Other because metadata indicates non-human phantom measurement and provides no human cohort info; \"Healthy\" would be misleading as a recruited population.\n\nModality: Metadata SAYS \"device-specific artefacts\" and \"Phantom Measurement\" with \"Movement onset... recorded with an accelerometer\"; no sensory stimuli are described. Few-shot pattern SUGGESTS modality should reflect stimulus channel; in methodology/phantom datasets with no stimuli, labels often fall to Other/Unknown. ALIGN: aligns with Modality=Other.\n\nType: Metadata SAYS focus is \"device-specific artefacts in MEG recordings\" (methods/artifact characterization), not a cognitive construct. Few-shot pattern SUGGESTS non-cognitive/methodological datasets should not be mapped to Memory/Perception/etc.; phantom example is also methodological. ALIGN: aligns with Type=Other.","decision_summary":"Pathology top-2: (A) Other — supported by quotes \"Neuromag Phantom Measurement\" and lack of any recruited diagnosis/participant description; (B) Healthy — suggested only by the few-shot convention where a phantom dataset was labeled Healthy. Head-to-head: Other wins because metadata indicates a phantom measurement (not a human cohort) and provides no health status. \n\nModality top-2: (A) Other — supported by quotes \"device-specific artefacts\" and \"Neuromag Phantom Measurement\" with no sensory stimuli described; (B) Motor — weakly suggested by \"Movement onset is recorded with an accelerometer\". Head-to-head: Other wins because accelerometer capture does not imply a motor stimulus paradigm; the dataset aim is artefact characterization.\n\nType top-2: (A) Other — supported by quotes \"device-specific artefacts in MEG recordings\" and \"Neuromag Phantom Measurement\" indicating methodological/artefact focus; (B) Motor — weak alternative due to movement onset recording. Head-to-head: Other wins because the primary research purpose is artefact characterization, not movement neuroscience.\n\nConfidence justification: Pathology has 1 strong quote indicating phantom + absence of cohort info (moderate certainty). Modality and Type are each supported by 2 explicit quotes indicating artefact/phantom focus and absence of stimulus/task details (higher certainty)."}},"nemar_citation_count":1,"computed_title":"sfb_meg_phantom (B04/C01)","nchans_counts":[{"val":323,"count":13},{"val":160,"count":12}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":5000.0,"count":25}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-05-31T19:34:32.599732+00:00","total_duration_s":1565.7,"author_year":"Bahners2023","canonical_name":null,"acknowledgements":"We thank Georg Bahners for his help with building the phantom and Pia Hartmann and Luisa Spallek for their assistance during recordings. EF gratefully acknowledges support by the Volkswagen Foundation (Lichtenberg program 89387). BHB gratefully acknowledges support by the Prof. Dr. Klaus Thiemann Foundation (Parkinson Fellowship 2022). RL gratefully acknowledges support by the Berlin Institute of Health (Clincian Scientist Programm 2021 2024).","how_to_acknowledge":"Please acknowledge the authors and cite the following reference: Bahne H Bahners, Roxanne Lofredi, Tilmann Sander, Alfons Schnitzler, Andrea A Kuhn, Esther Florin. Deep brain stimulation device-specific artefacts in MEG recordings. doi: tba","bad_channels_info":null,"associated_paper_meta":{"channel":"search","confidence":"high","author_overlap":5,"is_oa":true,"oa_status":"gold","source":"paper_resolver"}}}