{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3459","dataset_id":"ds006554","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Yaner Su"],"bids_version":"1.8.0","contact_info":null,"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006554.v1.0.0","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":47,"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/ds006554","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"65ca32291490e0a9ebebc8badce59658c71f1bb5635c9cbf412bf5b0c7abad2f","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Social Observation EEG raw data","readme":"# README\n# WARNING\nBelow is a template to write a README file for this BIDS dataset. If this message is still present, it means that the person exporting the file has decided not to update the template.If you are the researcher editing this README file, please remove this warning section.\nThe README is usually the starting point for researchers using your dataand serves as a guidepost for users of your data. A clear and informativeREADME makes your data much more usable.\nIn general you can include information in the README that is not captured by some otherfiles in the BIDS dataset (dataset_description.json, events.tsv, ...).\nIt can also be useful to also include information that might already bepresent in another file of the dataset but might be important for users to be aware ofbefore preprocessing or analysing the data.\nIf the README gets too long you have the possibility to create a `/doc` folderand add it to the `.bidsignore` file to make sure it is ignored by the BIDS validator.\nMore info here: https://neurostars.org/t/where-in-a-bids-dataset-should-i-put-notes-about-individual-mri-acqusitions/17315/3\n## Details related to access to the data\n- [ ] Data user agreement\nIf the dataset requires a data user agreement, link to the relevant information.\n- [ ] Contact person\nIndicate the name and contact details (email and ORCID) of the person responsible for additional information.\n- [ ] Practical information to access the data\nIf there is any special information related to access rights orhow to download the data make sure to include it.For example, if the dataset was curated using datalad,make sure to include the relevant section from the datalad handbook:http://handbook.datalad.org/en/latest/basics/101-180-FAQ.html#how-can-i-help-others-get-started-with-a-shared-dataset\n## Overview\n- [ ] Project name (if relevant)\n- [ ] Year(s) that the project ran\nIf no `scans.tsv` is included, this could at least cover when the data acquisitionstarter and ended. Local time of day is particularly relevant to subject state.\n- [ ] Brief overview of the tasks in the experiment\nA paragraph giving an overview of the experiment. This should include thegoals or purpose and a discussion about how the experiment tries to achievethese goals.\n- [ ] Description of the contents of the dataset\nAn easy thing to add is the output of the bids-validator that describes what type ofdata and the number of subject one can expect to find in the dataset.\n- [ ] Independent variables\nA brief discussion of condition variables (sometimes called contrastsor independent variables) that were varied across the experiment.\n- [ ] Dependent variables\nA brief discussion of the response variables (sometimes called thedependent variables) that were measured and or calculated to assessthe effects of varying the condition variables. This might also includequestionnaires administered to assess behavioral aspects of the experiment.\n- [ ] Control variables\nA brief discussion of the control variables --- that is what aspectswere explicitly controlled in this experiment. The control variables mightinclude subject pool, environmental conditions, set up, or other thingsthat were explicitly controlled.\n- [ ] Quality assessment of the data\nProvide a short summary of the quality of the data ideally with descriptive statistics if relevantand with a link to more comprehensive description (like with MRIQC) if possible.\n## Methods\n### Subjects\nA brief sentence about the subject pool in this experiment.\nRemember that `Control` or `Patient` status should be defined in the `participants.tsv`using a group column.\n- [ ] Information about the recruitment procedure- [ ] Subject inclusion criteria (if relevant)- [ ] Subject exclusion criteria (if relevant)\n### Apparatus\nA summary of the equipment and environment setup for theexperiment. For example, was the experiment performed in a shielded roomwith the subject seated in a fixed position.\n### Initial setup\nA summary of what setup was performed when a subject arrived.\n### Task organization\nHow the tasks were organized for a session.This is particularly important because BIDS datasets usually have task dataseparated into different files.)\n- [ ] Was task order counter-balanced?- [ ] What other activities were interspersed between tasks?\n- [ ] In what order were the tasks and other activities performed?\n### Task details\nAs much detail as possible about the task and the events that were recorded.\n### Additional data acquired\nA brief indication of data other than theimaging data that was acquired as part of this experiment. In additionto data from other modalities and behavioral data, this might includequestionnaires and surveys, swabs, and clinical information. Indicatethe availability of this data.\nThis is especially relevant if the data are not included in a `phenotype` folder.https://bids-specification.readthedocs.io/en/stable/03-modality-agnostic-files.html#phenotypic-and-assessment-data\n### Experimental location\nThis should include any additional information regarding thethe geographical location and facility that cannot be includedin the relevant json files.\n### Missing data\nMention something if some participants are missing some aspects of the data.This can take the form of a processing log and/or abnormalities about the dataset.\nSome examples:\n- A brain lesion or defect only present in one participant- Some experimental conditions missing on a given run for a participant because  of some technical issue.- Any noticeable feature of the data for certain participants- Differences (even slight) in protocol for certain participants.\n### Notes\nAny additional information or pointers to information thatmight be helpful to users of the dataset. Include qualitative informationrelated to how the data acquisition went.","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":null,"sessions":[],"size_bytes":13015242745,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["SocialObservation"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-05-31T16:25:13.932326+00:00","dataset_created_at":null,"dataset_modified_at":null},"total_files":47,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds006554","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.json","participants.tsv","task-SocialObservation_events.json"]},"tagger_meta":{"model":"openai/gpt-4o","tagged_at":"2026-06-10T08:19:41Z","source":"eegdash-llm-tagger"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Perception"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.7,"modality":0.6,"type":0.6},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"The dataset focuses on 'Social Observation' as a task. This is not explicitly covered in the few-shot examples. However, similar approaches like visual tasks under observation are present, such as 'Meta-rdk: Preprocessed EEG data' with schizophrenia patients doing visual discrimination, which suggests focusing on perception. Thus, for Type classification, perception or attention might be likely depending on focus.","metadata_analysis":"The dataset title 'Social Observation EEG raw data' suggests a focus on observing social cues. The task name 'SocialObservation' implies scenarios where participants might be observing or being observed, potentially evoking social cognitive or attention mechanisms.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No paper abstract provided. Therefore, no additional disambiguation could be done, relying fully on metadata.","evidence_alignment_check":"1. Pathology: Metadata doesn't mention any specific clinical population, only groups 'alone' and 'audience'. Few-shot examples classify non-specific pathologies as 'Healthy'. They align to indicate 'Healthy'.\n2. Modality: Metadata doesn't specify sensory modality, but social observation often involves 'Visual'. No other modality is mentioned or obvious from the metadata. This aligns with examples where non-described stimuli default to a visual context.\n3. Type: Perception is plausible as observing social situations might elicit perceptual processing. Attention might also fit if focused on responsiveness or vigilance. The dataset does not specifically highlight learning, memory, or decision-making, aligning the closest to perception or attention.","decision_summary":"Pathology inferred as 'Healthy' with 0.7 confidence due to group assignment and no clinical mention. Modality inferred as 'Visual' with 0.6, guided by task implications and common observation scenarios. Type inferred as 'Perception' at 0.6 confidence since observation typically involves perceptual processing."}},"computed_title":"Social Observation EEG raw data","nchans_counts":[{"val":64,"count":47}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":500.0,"count":47}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-05-31T19:34:32.602731+00:00","total_duration_s":101622.704,"author_year":"Su2025","canonical_name":null,"bad_channels_info":null,"generated_by":[{"Name":"bids-matlab-tools","Version":"10.2"}],"references_and_links":[""]}}