{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3445","dataset_id":"ds006367","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["xx"],"bids_version":"v1.2.1","contact_info":["Nursena Ataseven"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006367.v1.0.1","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":52,"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/ds006367","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"d7e70697e0f79faa23345caa76d99d09e7f2e84894b8ae757d0c8d8974b25df8","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Memory Reactivation Levels Remain Unaffected by Anticipated Interference","readme":"In this memory interference task, each trial began\nwith a space key press, followed by a fixation dot\nfor 1000–1500 ms. Then, two lateral objects appeared:\na cued target (learned) and an irrelevant novel one.\nParticipants memorized the cued object.\nAfter a 1400 ms delay, interference objects appeared\nbriefly on half the blocks; otherwise, only fixation.\nA probe then showed two objects vertically aligned,\nand participants selected the target using arrow keys.\nFeedback followed the response, showing the correct\nobject with color-coded text for 1000 ms.\nThe preprocessing steps to reach this dataset is explained\nin the following preprint and the mentioned OSF repository\nxx (Experiment 1)","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"xx","sessions":[],"size_bytes":29810755955,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["DelayedMatchtoSampleTask"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:29:18.807538+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2025-06-17T13:40:50.329Z","dataset_modified_at":"2025-06-25T12:01:16.000Z"},"total_files":52,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds006367","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.tsv","task-DelayedMatchtoSampleTask_events.json"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"f896c6d37f6a0532","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T18:55:50.170172+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Memory"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.6,"modality":0.8,"type":0.8},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"The closest few-shot convention match for Type is the digit span dataset (Healthy / Auditory / Memory): it labels tasks where participants explicitly “memorized” presented items and later recalled/recognized them as Type=Memory. Although that example uses auditory digits, the labeling convention is that the cognitive construct (memorization/maintenance/retrieval) drives Type. For Modality, the schizophrenia visual discrimination example and other visual-task examples show that when the stimuli are on-screen objects/dots, Modality=Visual (responses via keys/mouse do not change Modality).","metadata_analysis":"Key task facts from the provided README indicate a visual working-memory/recognition paradigm with interference:\n1) Memory encoding: \"two lateral objects appeared: a cued target (learned) and an irrelevant novel one. Participants memorized the cued object.\" \n2) Maintenance/Interference manipulation: \"After a 1400 ms delay, interference objects appeared briefly on half the blocks\".\n3) Memory probe/recognition: \"A probe then showed two objects vertically aligned, and participants selected the target using arrow keys.\" \nThese lines also imply Visual stimuli (\"objects appeared\", \"probe then showed two objects\"). No participant population/diagnosis information is provided in the metadata excerpt.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: no diagnosis/population is stated; only task procedure is described (e.g., \"Participants memorized the cued object\").\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when no clinical recruitment is mentioned, label as Healthy (seen across many few-shots where healthy participants are explicitly stated; here it is simply absent).\n- Alignment: partially aligned (few-shot provides convention; metadata lacks explicit population facts). Decision relies on absence of clinical indicators.\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: visual stimuli are presented on screen as objects (\"two lateral objects appeared\"; \"probe then showed two objects\").\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: on-screen stimuli => Visual (e.g., visual discrimination task labeled Visual).\n- Alignment: aligned.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: explicit memory demands with interference and probe (\"Participants memorized the cued object\"; \"interference objects appeared\"; \"selected the target\").\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: explicit memorization + later probe/selection => Memory (digit span example labeled Memory).\n- Alignment: aligned.","decision_summary":"Pathology (top-2):\n1) Healthy — Evidence: no mention of any disorder/clinical recruitment; generic \"Participants\" in a cognitive task context. Alignment: relies on convention when pathology is unstated.\n2) Unknown — Evidence: participant health status is not explicitly specified anywhere in the provided metadata.\nFinal: Healthy (slightly favored because nothing indicates a clinical cohort).\n\nModality (top-2):\n1) Visual — Evidence: \"two lateral objects appeared\"; \"A probe then showed two objects\".\n2) Multisensory — Weak alternative: no auditory/tactile stimuli mentioned; only keypress responses.\nFinal: Visual.\n\nType (top-2):\n1) Memory — Evidence: \"Participants memorized the cued object\"; delay + interference (\"interference objects appeared\"); recognition/selection at probe (\"participants selected the target\").\n2) Attention — Weak alternative: interference and selection could involve attentional control, but the primary explicit instruction is memorization and later identification.\nFinal: Memory.\n\nConfidence justification:\n- Pathology 0.6: no explicit participant health/diagnosis quote; inference from absence of clinical descriptors.\n- Modality 0.8: multiple explicit quotes about visual objects being shown.\n- Type 0.8: multiple explicit quotes about memorization, interference during delay, and probe-based selection."}},"computed_title":"Memory Reactivation Levels Remain Unaffected by Anticipated Interference","nchans_counts":[{"val":30,"count":52}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1000.0,"count":52}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.311507+00:00","total_duration_s":245417.79799999998,"author_year":"DS6367_Memory_Reactivation","canonical_name":null}}