{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a340c","dataset_id":"ds005662","associated_paper_doi":"10.1101/2025.07.10.664069","authors":["Sophie Smit","Almudena Ramírez-Haro","Manuel Varlet","Denise Moerel","Genevieve L. Quek","Tijl Grootswagers"],"bids_version":"1.0.0","contact_info":null,"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":true,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005662.v2.0.1","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":80,"ages":[34,24,35,30,36,22,33,23,32,22,30,27,22,44,26,18,28,35,21,24,20,51,21,37,18,45,29,42,18,20,19,18,19,23,40,26,21,20,39,40,24,37,38,23,35,53,76,25,32,38,19,23,21,30,21,25,53,52,18,19,48,44,37,24,28,33,22,22,34,42,21,40,31,23,26,32,21,20,33,31],"age_min":18,"age_max":76,"age_mean":30.075,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"f":54,"m":24,"o":2},"handedness_distribution":{"a":3}},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"paper_url":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.10.664069"},"funding":["This research was supported by Australian Research Council grants DP220103047 (MV) and DE230100380 (TG)."],"ingestion_fingerprint":"8d879632bb50d7fbf9eb9e7ab3a183789a690482174906b03b2eca3b057d2654","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"A comprehensive EEG dataset for investigating\nvisual touch perception","readme":"Data collection took place at The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development in Sydney, Australia. The study was approved by the Western Sydney University Ethics Committee.\nWe recorded EEG data while participants viewed rapid streams of videos adapted from the Validated Touch-Video Database (Smit & Rich, 2025) depicting touch to a hand. Both the adapted videos used in this project, and original videos and validation data, are available on OSF (https://osf.io/jvkqa/).\nThere were 32 sequences in total with a total of 2880 non-target trials (90 unique videos, each presented 8 times) alongside a variable number of target trials (showing touch to an object). Between trials there was an inter-trial-interval of 200ms. The experimental task lasted approximately 55 minutes including breaks. We also recorded questionnaire responses.\nWhole brain 64-channel EEG data were recorded using an Active Two Biosemi system (Biosemi, Inc.) at 2048Hz and 10-20 standard caps. Stimuli were presented using Python and PsychoPy software version 2023.3.1.","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":null,"sessions":[],"size_bytes":127055812772,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["video"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-05-31T16:21:25.736660+00:00","dataset_created_at":null,"dataset_modified_at":null},"total_files":80,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds005662","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README.txt","participants.json","participants.tsv","task-video_eeg.json","task-video_events.json"]},"tagger_meta":{"model":"gpt-6-sol","taxonomy":"v2","config_hash":"39931253008fe2df","tagged_at":"2026-10-06T13:13:11Z","source":"eegdash-llm-tagger"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Perception"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.6,"modality":0.9,"type":0.9},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"The Meta-rdk example maps a visual stimulus-discrimination task to Visual and Perception; its Schizophrenia spectrum label comes from its explicitly diagnosed participants, not from the task. The music-and-speech example likewise maps neural responses to presented sensory material to Perception rather than to the participants' response requirements. Here, the videos and the stated aim of investigating visual touch perception support the same modality and type conventions. Neither example supplies a diagnosis for this dataset.","metadata_analysis":"The title says \"investigating visual touch perception.\" The readme says participants \"viewed rapid streams of videos\" that were \"depicting touch to a hand,\" with \"2880 non-target trials\" and target trials \"showing touch to an object.\" The task is named \"video,\" and the overview reports \"Subjects: 80.\" No metadata states that participants were recruited for a clinical condition. The depicted touch is visual content, not evidence that tactile stimuli were delivered.","paper_abstract_analysis":"The abstract confirms that participants \"viewed touch interactions between two hands\" and describes the resource as supporting research into \"visual touch perception.\" Its references to empathy and mirror-touch synaesthesia describe self-report measures and individual differences, not a clinically recruited cohort. The abstract is consistent with the metadata.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata says \"Subjects: 80\" and describes questionnaire responses, but gives no recruited diagnosis. Few-shot examples suggest Healthy for cohorts without a disorder focus. ALIGN, with Healthy inferred rather than explicitly stated. Modality: Metadata says \"viewed rapid streams of videos\" and names the task \"video.\" The visual-task few-shot suggests Visual. ALIGN; touch is depicted, not delivered to participants. Type: Metadata says \"investigating visual touch perception\" and describes videos \"depicting touch to a hand.\" Sensory-processing few-shots suggest Perception. ALIGN; target trials do not establish a separate primary aim.","decision_summary":"Pathology—Healthy versus Other clinical: Healthy is stronger because the overview reports \"Subjects: 80\" and no clinical recruitment is described; questionnaire measures alone do not support Other clinical. Confidence 0.6: this is contextual inference without an explicit healthy-status statement. Modality—Visual versus Tactile: Visual is stronger based on \"visual touch perception,\" \"viewed rapid streams of videos,\" and task \"video,\" plus the matching visual-task few-shot. The alternative confuses depicted touch with delivered stimulation. Confidence 0.9. Type—Perception versus Attention: Perception is stronger based on \"investigating visual touch perception,\" videos \"depicting touch to a hand,\" and the described touch-versus-object trials, with sensory-processing few-shot support. Target trials alone do not make attention a stated research aim. Confidence 0.9. Metadata and few-shot conventions align; no metadata fact was overridden.","unused":""}},"computed_title":"A comprehensive EEG dataset for investigating\nvisual touch perception","nchans_counts":[{"val":65,"count":80}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":2048.0,"count":80}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-05-31T19:34:32.601702+00:00","source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds005662","total_duration_s":289682.0,"author_year":"Smit2024","canonical_name":null,"bad_channels_info":null,"acknowledgements":"We thank our participants and funding sources.","ethics_approvals":["Approval from the Western Sydney University Ethics Committee (project number: H15644)"],"generated_by":[{"Name":"PsychoPy","Version":"2023.3.1","Description":"Used to program and run the experiment."},{"Name":"Python","Version":"3.9.13","Description":"Used for scripting and experiment control."},{"Name":"MNE-Python","Version":"1.7","Description":"Used for preprocessing and subsequent data analyses."}],"how_to_acknowledge":"Please cite Smit et al. (2025) when using this dataset.","associated_paper_meta":{"channel":"crossref-biblio","confidence":"high","author_overlap":6,"is_oa":true,"oa_status":"preprint","source":"paper_resolver"}}}