{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3411","dataset_id":"ds005692","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Max-Philipp Stenner","Cindy Marquez Nossa","Tino Zaehle","Elena Azanon","Hans-Jochen Heinze","Matthias Deliano","Lars Buentjen"],"bids_version":"1.6","contact_info":["Max-Philipp Stenner"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005692.v1.0.0","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":30,"ages":[27,24,21,26,29,27,24,26,25,25,24,20,28,27,26,30,27,28,32,24,31,25,31,20,24,24,26,23,23,32],"age_min":20,"age_max":32,"age_mean":25.966666666666665,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"m":18,"f":12},"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds005692","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":["M.-P.S. was supported by a VolkswagenStiftung Freigeist Fellowship project-ID 92977.","M.-P.S. and E.A. received funding from a Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Sonderforschungsbereich SFB-1436 TPC03 project-ID 425899996."],"ingestion_fingerprint":"578e58df419395a7af0c377ed8abbe4377a94e6894549d6241bd71878b0bfd70","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"SpinalExpect_NonInvasive","readme":"Contact person:\nMax-Philipp Stenner, email: max-philipp.stenner@med.ovgu.de or max-philipp.stenner@lin-magdeburg.de, ORCID: 0000-0002-3694-1887\nBrief overview of the tasks in the experiment:\nThe goal was to reveal whether temporal expectation influences initial sensory processing in the human spinal cord. In each trial, subjects (n=30, healthy, young) received at least one electric median nerve stimulation on the left wrist. Their task was to silently count in how many (rare) trials in each block (~5 min) there were two median nerve stimuli in rapid succession (80 ms ISI), and to report that number at the end of each block. In each trial, the median nerve stimulation was preceded by an auditory cue. In alternating blocks, the time interval between the auditory cue and the (first) median nerve stimulation was either fixed at 1100 ms, or varied randomly (uniform distribution) between 100 and 2100 ms. Each subject (except for sub-24) completed two days of testing. Whether a session began with a constant-interval block or variable-interval block was counterbalanced across subjects.\nMontage:\nAdapted from/extended beyond Chander, B. S., Deliano, M., Azañón, E., Büntjen, L., & Stenner, M. P. (2022). Non-invasive recording of high-frequency signals from the human spinal cord. NeuroImage, 253, 119050, as follows. Electrodes were placed in three rings around the neck. \"Sr\" in the channel names stands for \"spinal ring\". There was a caudal, middle, and cranial ring of electrodes. The middle ring was connecting a point above the spinous process of the sixth cervical vertebra (SrC6), and a point above the thyroid cartilage (\"SrF\"). Between these two electrodes, the remaining six electrodes for the middle ring were evenly spaced around the neck. \"L\" in channel names means left, \"R\" means right, \"B\" means \"back\", \"F\" means front, and \"M\" means middle. For the caudal and cranial rings, electrodes were placed approximately 2 cm below (\"_b\") and 2 cm above (\"_a\") the corresponding electrodes of the middle ring, respectively.\nEvents:\nThere are three events of interest. \"S1\" is a keypress of the experimenter, to advance the task upon breaks. \"S1\" can therefore be used to identify the start of each new block. \"S70\" corresponds to the auditory cue. \"S130\" corresponds to median nerve stimulation. \"S99\" is a \"placeholder\" that corresponds to no stimulus at all. The placeholder was used to enable \"double stimuli\", i.e., a rapid succession of two median nerve stimulations with an ISI of 80 ms. Most trials follow a sequence of \"S70\" - \"S130\" - \"S99\". Deviant trials have \"S70\" - \"S130\" - \"S130\".","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"Lars Buentjen","sessions":["1","2"],"size_bytes":99649236711,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["countingDeviants"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:28:41.560112+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2024-12-04T09:54:43.031Z","dataset_modified_at":"2024-12-04T16:14:23.000Z"},"total_files":59,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds005692","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"dfb6e2627993be2b","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T18:36:11.052626+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Multisensory"],"type":["Attention"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.7,"modality":0.8,"type":0.8},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot example by paradigm is the “Cross-modal Oddball Task” (Parkinson’s; Multisensory; Clinical/Intervention): it combines an auditory component with a visual component, and was labeled Multisensory because stimuli span more than one sensory channel. The present dataset likewise combines an auditory cue with a somatosensory/electrical median nerve stimulation, suggesting the same Modality convention (Multisensory).\nFor Type, the DPX cognitive control example (TBI; Visual; Attention) illustrates that when the manipulation is about cueing/expectation and cognitive control of processing (rather than pure sensory discrimination), the catalog convention is to label as Attention. This dataset’s key manipulation is temporal expectation via fixed vs variable cue–stimulus intervals, aligning more with Attention than Perception.","metadata_analysis":"Key participant/population fact: \"subjects (n=30, healthy, young)\".\nKey stimulus/task facts: \"received at least one electric median nerve stimulation on the left wrist\" and \"the median nerve stimulation was preceded by an auditory cue\".\nKey manipulation tied to construct: \"reveal whether temporal expectation influences initial sensory processing\" and \"time interval between the auditory cue and the (first) median nerve stimulation was either fixed ... or varied randomly\".\nEvents confirm channels: \"\\\"S70\\\" corresponds to the auditory cue\" and \"\\\"S130\\\" corresponds to median nerve stimulation\".","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: \"subjects (n=30, healthy, young)\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when no disorder/diagnosis is mentioned and participants are described as healthy controls, label Healthy.\n- Alignment: ALIGN.\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: \"median nerve stimulation ... preceded by an auditory cue\" and events: \"S70 ... auditory cue\" + \"S130 ... median nerve stimulation\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when two sensory channels are explicitly used (e.g., cross-modal cues), label Multisensory (as in the cross-modal oddball example).\n- Alignment: ALIGN.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: \"temporal expectation influences initial sensory processing\" with fixed vs variable cue–stimulus intervals.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: expectation/cueing manipulations that probe control of processing map to Attention (e.g., DPX cognitive control labeled Attention), whereas pure sensory detection/discrimination maps to Perception.\n- Alignment: mostly ALIGN (task is a detection/counting cover task, but the stated goal is temporal expectation/attentional timing).","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidate labels (with decision):\n\nPathology:\n1) Healthy (selected) — evidence: \"subjects (n=30, healthy, young)\".\n2) Unknown — would apply only if recruitment health status were not stated.\nAlignment status: aligned with few-shot conventions. Confidence limited because only one explicit population quote.\n\nModality:\n1) Multisensory (selected) — evidence: \"median nerve stimulation was preceded by an auditory cue\"; event mapping \"S70 ... auditory cue\" and \"S130 ... median nerve stimulation\".\n2) Tactile — plausible because the primary probed response is somatosensory evoked activity from median nerve stimulation, but explicit concurrent auditory cueing makes Multisensory stronger per few-shot convention.\nAlignment status: aligned with the cross-modal oddball few-shot labeling style.\n\nType:\n1) Attention (selected) — evidence: \"temporal expectation influences initial sensory processing\"; manipulation of \"time interval between the auditory cue and the ... stimulation\" (fixed vs variable), i.e., temporal orienting/expectation.\n2) Perception — plausible because participants detect/count rare double stimulations (a sensory deviant), but this appears to be a cover task; the stated research goal is temporal expectation effects.\nAlignment status: aligned with few-shot convention that cueing/expectation manipulations map to Attention."}},"nemar_citation_count":0,"computed_title":"SpinalExpect_NonInvasive","nchans_counts":[{"val":25,"count":59}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":5000.0,"count":59}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.310817+00:00","source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds005692","total_duration_s":403942.4398,"author_year":"Stenner2024_SpinalExpect_NonInvasive","canonical_name":null}}