{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a343e","dataset_id":"ds006234","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Ryuzaburo Kochi","Aya Kanno","Hiroshi Uda","Keisuke Hatano","Hidenori Endo","Michael Cools","Robert Rothermel","Aimee F. Luat","Eishi Asano"],"bids_version":"1.7.0","contact_info":["Ryuzaburo Kochi"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006234.v1.0.0","datatypes":["ieeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":119,"ages":[16,17,15,8,14,14,16,17,10,8,8,11,16,18,17,8,17,14,10,10,15,19,6,14,11,13,23,10,5,16,16,37,14,5,11,21,17,15,44,37,14,28,20,14,13,41,12,8,10,12,9,28,27,17,15,6,12,5,9,30,21,13,11,17,16,8,13,14,12,13,11,15,14,11,12,17,11,17,10,13,11,16,15,15,10,10,16,12,8,14,12,19,6,16,8,16,19,15,14,5,16,13,16,9,13,11,13,20,49,12,15,8,16,17,13,7,17,19,15],"age_min":5,"age_max":49,"age_mean":14.857142857142858,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"m":60,"f":59},"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds006234","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":["N/A"],"ingestion_fingerprint":"b2f2e62231b477e2c68e97e572eb9b81e48137615ed7676b5fa26cb63253251a","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Auditory naming","readme":"This dataset, used in the analysis reported by Kochi et al., (2025), contains intracranial EEG recordings from 119 individuals who performed an auditory‑naming task. Electrode coordinates are provided in MNI‑305 space.\nEach EDF file is tagged for the auditory naming task with the following event codes:\n401 – stimulus onset\n402 – stimulus offset\n501 – response onset\nReference:\nRyuzaburo Kochi, Aya Kanno, Hiroshi Uda, Keisuke Hatano, Hidenori Endo, Michael Cools, Robert Rothermel, Aimee F. Luat, Eishi Asano. Naming is Shaped by Early Facilitative and Late Compensatory Neural Interactions: An Intracranial Study of 125 Patients","recording_modality":["ieeg"],"senior_author":"Eishi Asano","sessions":["1","2","3","4","5","6"],"size_bytes":47167316634,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["auditory"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:29:13.819501+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2025-05-13T05:51:34.168Z","dataset_modified_at":"2025-05-19T12:06:15.000Z"},"total_files":378,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds006234","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.json","participants.tsv"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"3557b68bca409f28","metadata_hash":"aa929ac1cebb15e0","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:40.872789+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Surgery"],"modality":["Auditory"],"type":["Other"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.6,"modality":0.9,"type":0.7},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot examples by stimulus channel are the auditory paradigms: (1) the digit span dataset labeled Modality=Auditory and Type=Memory, where stimuli are explicitly “digits presented auditorily”; and (2) the auditory oddball dataset labeled Modality=Auditory. These examples guide the convention that Modality is labeled from the presented stimulus channel (auditory words/sounds), not the response. For Pathology, few-shot clinical datasets (e.g., Parkinson’s, TBI, Epilepsy) all contain explicit diagnostic recruitment statements; this sets the convention that without an explicit diagnosis in metadata, pathology should not be confidently assigned to a specific disorder label.","metadata_analysis":"Key dataset facts from metadata:\n- Population/context: “contains intracranial EEG recordings from 119 individuals” and the cited reference is “An Intracranial Study of 125 Patients” (suggests a clinical intracranial monitoring cohort, but no explicit diagnosis is stated).\n- Task/stimulus: “performed an auditory‑naming task” and the dataset title is “Auditory naming”.\n- Task tagging: “Each EDF file is tagged for the auditory naming task” with event codes including “401 – stimulus onset” and “501 – response onset”.\n- BIDS task field: tasks include “auditory”.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information (no abstract provided in the dataset metadata).","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: “intracranial EEG recordings from 119 individuals” and reference to “125 Patients” (clinical implication but no diagnosis named).\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: invasive/iEEG cohorts are often clinical (e.g., epilepsy surgery monitoring), but few-shot examples require explicit diagnostic statements to confidently label a specific condition.\n- Alignment: PARTIAL. Both imply a clinical cohort, but metadata lacks explicit pathology; therefore avoid over-specific disorder labeling.\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: “Auditory naming”, “auditory‑naming task”, and tasks include “auditory”.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: auditory-presented stimuli map to Modality=Auditory (as in digit span and auditory oddball examples).\n- Alignment: ALIGNS.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: “auditory‑naming task” with “response onset” events, indicating a language naming/production paradigm.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when the primary construct is not one of the catalog’s explicit cognitive labels (e.g., language naming), Type is typically mapped to Other rather than forcing Memory/Attention/Perception.\n- Alignment: ALIGNS (best-fit mapping to available labels).","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates and selection:\n\n1) Pathology\n- Candidate A: Surgery\n  Evidence: “intracranial EEG recordings” and cited “Intracranial Study of 125 Patients” strongly implies a presurgical/inpatient invasive monitoring cohort.\n- Candidate B: Unknown\n  Evidence: no explicit diagnosis/recruitment criterion (e.g., epilepsy) stated anywhere in provided metadata.\n- Decision: Surgery (slightly stronger given iEEG is typically obtained in surgical evaluation contexts), but with limited confidence due to missing explicit pathology.\n  Evidence/quotes used: “intracranial EEG recordings”; “Intracranial Study of 125 Patients”.\n\n2) Modality\n- Candidate A: Auditory\n  Evidence: title “Auditory naming”; “performed an auditory‑naming task”; tasks include “auditory”.\n- Candidate B: Other\n  Evidence: would apply only if stimuli were not clearly sensory-specific (not the case here).\n- Decision: Auditory.\n  Evidence/quotes used: “Auditory naming”; “auditory‑naming task”; tasks: “auditory”.\n\n3) Type\n- Candidate A: Other\n  Evidence: naming/language production is not a dedicated Type label in the allowed set; task is “auditory‑naming”.\n- Candidate B: Perception\n  Evidence: auditory word/sound perception is part of the task, but the paradigm’s goal is naming (production/lexical retrieval) rather than pure perceptual discrimination.\n- Decision: Other.\n  Evidence/quotes used: “auditory‑naming task”; presence of “response onset” (501) indicating active naming behavior.\n\nConfidence justification:\n- Pathology=0.6: inference from iEEG/“patients” wording without explicit diagnosis.\n- Modality=0.9: 3+ explicit metadata indicators of auditory stimulus/task.\n- Type=0.7: explicit task name supports a language/naming construct, but mapping to ‘Other’ is a taxonomy-fit decision rather than explicitly stated construct label."}},"computed_title":"Auditory naming","nchans_counts":[{"val":128,"count":269},{"val":138,"count":14},{"val":136,"count":11},{"val":112,"count":9},{"val":140,"count":8},{"val":164,"count":8},{"val":134,"count":7},{"val":110,"count":6},{"val":142,"count":5},{"val":156,"count":5},{"val":150,"count":5},{"val":130,"count":4},{"val":132,"count":4},{"val":144,"count":4},{"val":148,"count":4},{"val":96,"count":3},{"val":84,"count":3},{"val":118,"count":3},{"val":152,"count":3},{"val":64,"count":2},{"val":58,"count":1}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1000.0,"count":378}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.311430+00:00","total_duration_s":null,"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.74,"name_meta":{"suggested_at":"2026-04-14T10:18:35.343Z","model":"openai/gpt-5.2 + openai/gpt-5.4-mini + deterministic_fallback"},"name_source":"author_year","author_year":"Kochi2025_Auditory_naming"}}