{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a33e5","dataset_id":"ds005415","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Alexander P. Rockhill","Ahmed M. Raslan"],"bids_version":"1.9.9","contact_info":["Alexander Rockhill"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":true,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005415.v1.0.0","datatypes":["ieeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":13,"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/ds005415","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"8a07b979fde4409e91cdea3a950452e70939f0a52823b52d0e2bd82ace2b0c01","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Numbers","readme":"Welcome to the numbers dataset. These data were collected using stereoelectroencephalography recordings of epilepsy patients while they were waiting on the epilepsy monitoring unit to have seizures at Oregon Health & Science University. They were shown auditory and visual numbers that were symbolic (Arabic + spoken) or non-symbolic (dots + beeps).","recording_modality":["ieeg"],"senior_author":"Ahmed M. Raslan","sessions":[],"size_bytes":8015284412,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["numbers"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:27:45.564778+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2024-08-17T03:31:16.602Z","dataset_modified_at":"2024-10-25T12:49:06.000Z"},"total_files":13,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds005415","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"30771c6552767972","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T17:54:15.231792+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Epilepsy"],"modality":["Multisensory"],"type":["Perception"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.7,"modality":0.75,"type":0.6},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Closest few-shot match on stimulus modality is the \"Cross-modal Oddball Task\" example, where simultaneous/combined auditory+visual cues lead to the label Modality=\"Multisensory\". Closest few-shot match on pathology is the \"Dataset of EEG recordings of pediatric patients with epilepsy\" example, where explicit recruitment of epilepsy patients leads to Pathology=\"Epilepsy\" (even if the task differs). These examples guide the convention: (1) label modality by stimulus channel(s) (auditory+visual => multisensory), and (2) explicit clinical recruitment (epilepsy patients) determines pathology.","metadata_analysis":"Key facts from the provided README:\n1) Population/pathology: \"stereoelectroencephalography recordings of epilepsy patients\" and \"waiting on the epilepsy monitoring unit\".\n2) Stimulus modality: \"shown auditory and visual numbers\" and \"symbolic (Arabic + spoken) or non-symbolic (dots + beeps)\".\nThese indicate an epilepsy clinical cohort and mixed auditory+visual (cross-modal) number stimuli.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: \"epilepsy patients\" (explicit recruitment).\n- Few-shot suggests: epilepsy cohorts map to Pathology=\"Epilepsy\" (see pediatric epilepsy example).\n- Alignment: ALIGN.\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: \"auditory and visual numbers\" and gives auditory (\"spoken\", \"beeps\") + visual (\"Arabic\", \"dots\").\n- Few-shot suggests: combined auditory+visual paradigms map to Modality=\"Multisensory\" (see Cross-modal Oddball example).\n- Alignment: ALIGN.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: participants were \"shown auditory and visual numbers\" with symbolic vs non-symbolic formats; no mention of intervention, resting, sleep, or motor focus.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: stimulus-driven sensory/categorical processing tasks typically map to Type=\"Perception\" (e.g., visual discrimination; auditory stimulus processing).\n- Alignment: PARTIAL (metadata doesn’t explicitly state the cognitive construct, but is most consistent with perceptual/representation processing of numerosity/symbolic vs nonsymbolic number stimuli).","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates per category:\n\nPathology:\n1) Epilepsy (FINAL) — supported by: \"stereoelectroencephalography recordings of epilepsy patients\"; \"epilepsy monitoring unit\".\n2) Unknown — would apply if no recruitment diagnosis were stated, but explicit diagnosis is present.\nAlignment status: Aligns with few-shot epilepsy convention.\nConfidence rationale: 1 strong explicit quote naming the clinical population.\n\nModality:\n1) Multisensory (FINAL) — supported by: \"auditory and visual numbers\"; \"Arabic + spoken\"; \"dots + beeps\".\n2) Visual — plausible if only Arabic/dots were present, but auditory stimuli are explicitly included.\nAlignment status: Aligns with the cross-modal few-shot convention.\nConfidence rationale: multiple explicit modality cues in the single README.\n\nType:\n1) Perception (FINAL) — supported by stimulus-focused description: \"shown auditory and visual numbers\"; symbolic vs non-symbolic formats (Arabic/spoken vs dots/beeps) implying sensory/representational processing.\n2) Other — possible if the true aim is higher-level numerical cognition not covered well by the provided Type labels.\nAlignment status: Partially aligned; inferred from task description rather than explicitly named construct.\nConfidence rationale: task is clear, but study goal/construct is not explicitly stated beyond stimulus categories."}},"nemar_citation_count":1,"computed_title":"Numbers","nchans_counts":[{"val":182,"count":2},{"val":266,"count":1},{"val":192,"count":1},{"val":246,"count":1},{"val":210,"count":1},{"val":202,"count":1},{"val":224,"count":1},{"val":228,"count":1},{"val":188,"count":1},{"val":194,"count":1},{"val":200,"count":1},{"val":230,"count":1}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1000.0,"count":10},{"val":2000.0,"count":3}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.309564+00:00","total_duration_s":15189.9885,"author_year":"Rockhill2024","canonical_name":null}}