{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a341f","dataset_id":"ds005866","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Brennan Terhune-Cotter","Phillip J. Holcomb","Katherine J. Midgley","Sofia E. Ortega","Emily M. Akers","Karen Emmorey"],"bids_version":"1.8.0","contact_info":["Emily M. Akers"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds005866.v1.0.1","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":60,"ages":[28,32,24,36,36,33,34,33,28,38,54,20,35,39,41,39,27,50,23,27,24,49,29,46,28,28,21,28,32,35,21,24,21,25,25,26,24,33,27,27,22,29,26,40,44,35,37,38,46,37,36,52,29,23,34,25,23,26,21,44],"age_min":20,"age_max":54,"age_mean":31.95,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"m":31,"f":27,"o":2},"handedness_distribution":{"r":52,"l":5}},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds005866","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"c4105b94d77267053686ba06227095ada811ed6cd17f7ee560c27cc4ca15340c","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Flankers-NEAR","readme":"Data collection took place at the NeuroCognition Laboratory (NCL) in San Diego, California under the supervision of Dr. Phillip Holcomb and Dr. Karen Emmorey. This project followed the San Diego State University’s IRB guidelines.\nParticipants sat in a comfortable chair in a darkened, sound-attenuated room throughout the experiment. They were given a game controller for responding to stimuli. They were instructed to watch the 24in-LCD video monitor, which was placed at a viewing distance of 60 in (152 cm).\nParticipants were presented with 90 four-letter real words and 90 four-letter pseudowords in white New Courier font on a black background. Each letter subtended .41 degrees of visual angle. The flanker words were separated from the center target word by .41 degrees of empty space on both sides. All targets and flankers were content words under a 6th grade reading level; plural words and proper nouns were excluded. All words were presented once in each of the three conditions: no flanker, identical flankers, or different flankers. There were 270 trials. Trials started with a purple fixation cross for 1000ms, followed by a white fixation cross for 500ms to prepare participants for the presentation of the stimulus. The stimulus item was then presented for 150ms, followed by a blank screen shown until participants responded via the game controller. \u0000","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"Karen Emmorey","sessions":[],"size_bytes":3837193012,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["FlankerNEAR"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:28:57.191961+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2025-01-21T19:49:10.154Z","dataset_modified_at":"2025-01-21T22:05:45.000Z"},"total_files":60,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds005866","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.json","participants.tsv","task-FlankerNEAR_events.json"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"cb0f7f20c6986eda","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T18:41:13.857051+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Attention"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.6,"modality":0.85,"type":0.75},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"The closest few-shot convention is the DPX cognitive control dataset (TBI; Visual; Attention). While the paradigm differs (DPX vs word flanker), both involve interference from competing stimuli and require selective processing of a target among distractors. This supports mapping a flanker-style manipulation to the Type label “Attention” (rather than “Perception” which is used in the few-shot visual motion discrimination example, or “Memory” used for digit span).","metadata_analysis":"Key task facts indicating Visual stimulation and flanker/interference design:\n- Visual word stimuli: “Participants were presented with 90 four-letter real words and 90 four-letter pseudowords in white New Courier font on a black background.”\n- Explicit flanker manipulation: “All words were presented once in each of the three conditions: no flanker, identical flankers, or different flankers.”\n- Visual presentation apparatus/timing: “instructed to watch the 24in-LCD video monitor” and “The stimulus item was then presented for 150ms”.\nNo explicit recruitment of a clinical group is stated; only general experimental setting and instructions are described.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n1) Metadata says: no diagnosis/clinical recruitment is mentioned (only “Participants sat in a comfortable chair…”).\n2) Few-shot pattern suggests: in the absence of clinical descriptors, datasets are labeled “Healthy” (e.g., multiple few-shots explicitly label healthy cohorts for standard cognitive tasks).\n3) ALIGN (no conflict).\n\nModality:\n1) Metadata says: visual presentation on a monitor with printed words (“watch the 24in-LCD video monitor”; “words… in white… font on a black background”).\n2) Few-shot pattern suggests: screen-based stimulus tasks are “Visual” (e.g., visual discrimination; visual gambling cues).\n3) ALIGN.\n\nType:\n1) Metadata says: distractor manipulation via flankers (“no flanker, identical flankers, or different flankers”) requiring selection of a central target word.\n2) Few-shot pattern suggests: interference/cognitive control paradigms map to “Attention” (DPX cognitive control example labeled Attention).\n3) ALIGN.","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates per category with head-to-head comparison:\n\nPathology:\n- Healthy: Supported by absence of any stated disorder/clinical recruitment in the README (no patient groups mentioned).\n- Unknown: Possible because participants are not explicitly described as healthy controls.\nDecision: Healthy wins because typical task-study context with no clinical framing matches few-shot convention for non-clinical cognitive experiments.\nConfidence basis: no direct “healthy” quote, so confidence limited.\n\nModality:\n- Visual: Strongly supported by “watch the 24in-LCD video monitor” and word stimuli “presented… in… font on a black background,” plus precise visual timing (“presented for 150ms”).\n- Multisensory: Weak alternative since responses used a controller, but response device is not stimulus modality.\nDecision: Visual.\nConfidence basis: multiple explicit visual-stimulus quotes.\n\nType:\n- Attention: Supported by classic flanker manipulation (“no flanker… identical… different flankers”) implying distractor interference/selection demands; aligns with few-shot DPX (Attention) convention for interference/control tasks.\n- Perception: Plausible because it involves visual word/pseudoword identification, but the defining manipulation is distractor flankers rather than purely sensory discrimination.\nDecision: Attention.\nConfidence basis: clear flanker/interference description but no explicit statement of the cognitive construct (e.g., ‘attention’), so moderate confidence."}},"computed_title":"Flankers-NEAR","nchans_counts":[{"val":32,"count":60}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":500.0,"count":60}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.311008+00:00","total_duration_s":57514.496,"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.78,"name_meta":{"suggested_at":"2026-04-14T10:18:35.343Z","model":"openai/gpt-5.2 + openai/gpt-5.4-mini + deterministic_fallback"},"name_source":"canonical","author_year":"TerhuneCotter2025_NEAR"}}