{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a346e","dataset_id":"ds006861","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Szymon Mąka","Marta Chrustowicz","Łukasz Okruszek"],"bids_version":"1.8.0","contact_info":["Szymon Mąka","Łukasz Okruszek"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":true,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006861.v1.0.2","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":120,"ages":[22,19,23,28,21,22,25,31,26,35,24,21,23,32,33,22,34,22,26,23,25,26,31,30,35,31,27,20,35,27,19,28,21,22,24,19,23,22,18,26,30,24,22,21,18,28,19,19,19,28,29,29,26,20,21,24,22,32,33,19,21,22,19,27,25,21,28,19,27,22,21,19,25,24,21,24,22,31,21,24,21,25,21,19,20,23,24,18,22,26,26,21,18,21,22,23,23,20,20,21,28,18,23,23,25,28,34,18,25,22,30,27,23,35,23,21,28,24,19,20],"age_min":18,"age_max":35,"age_mean":24.125,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"f":70,"m":50},"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds006861","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":["National Science Centre, Poland (Grant No: 2019/35/B/HS6/00517)"],"ingestion_fingerprint":"97c84ebaef5241f51ee19492cd7d4d7286cc6f791617b786f04a82548c96be7a","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Targeted Neuromodulation of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Alleviates Altered Affective Response Evaluation in Lonely Individuals\n","readme":"# Emotion Processing and Regulation Task (Static Stimuli) — tDCS‑EEG Dataset\nThis repository provides EEG recordings and behavioral data from the **Emotion Processing and Regulation** task conducted with **transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)**.\n* **Preregistration:** [https://osf.io/qdp3w](https://osf.io/qdp3w)\n* **Preprint:** [https://osf.io/qtm8r](https://osf.io/qtm8r)\n---\n## Overview\nEach participant took part in **two experimental sessions**:\n* **`ses-1`** — Sham stimulation\n* **`ses-2`** — Active stimulation\nThe order of sham/active conditions was counterbalanced across participants.\n---\n## Participants\n* **N = 120** right‑handed, neurologically healthy adults with normal or corrected‑to‑normal vision.\n* **Missing data:** Participant `sub-005` completed only `ses-1` due to a recording error during `ses-2`.\n---\n## Experimental Task\nParticipants completed 120 trials per session, evenly allocated to a 2 (content: social, non-social) × 3 (regulation requirement: watch-neutral, watch-negative, reappraise-negative) factorial design. On each trial, they viewed a static image for 5 s and either watched or reappraised it as instructed. After each image, participants rated its arousal and then valence on separate 9-point scales.\n---\n## tDCS Stimulation\n**System:** Starstim 8 (Neuroelectrics, Spain) with **NIC2** software.\n### Electrode Montage\nStimulation was targeted to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) in two alternative montages:\n* **Right dlPFC stimulation**\n  * *Anode:* **F4**\n  * *Returns:* **FP2, FZ, FC2, FC6**\n* **Left dlPFC stimulation**\n  * *Anode:* **F3**\n  * *Returns:* **FP1, FZ, FC1, FC5**\n**Electrode areas**\n* **Anodal:** 8 cm²\n* **Return:** π cm²\n* **Ground:** left earlobe\n### Stimulation Protocol\n* **Active:** 2 mA for 20 min (with 30 s ramp‑up)\n* **Sham:** only ramp‑up periods at start and end; no sustained current\n* **Questionnaires:** After each session, participants completed the **tDCS Sensation Questionnaire** (Polish version: [https://osf.io/ufszr](https://osf.io/ufszr)) to evaluate potential side effects. Additionally, after the final session, they indicated whether they believed each session involved *real*, *sham*, or *I don’t know* stimulation to assess **blinding effectiveness**.\n---\n## EEG Acquisition\n* **Cap:** 64‑channel QuickCap (32  EEG electrodes used)\n* **Amplifier:** Neuroscan SynampsRT\n* **Sampling rate:** 1000 Hz\n* **Impedance:** kept < 10 kΩ\n**Active EEG electrodes (32):**\nFP1, FP2, F7, F3, FZ, F4, F8, FT7, FC3, FCZ, FC4, FT8,\nT7, C3, CZ, C4, T8, M1, TP7, CP3, CPZ, CP4, TP8, M2,\nP7, P3, PZ, P4, P8, O1, OZ, O2\n**Additional sensors**\n* **EOG:** Horizontal (HEO) and Vertical (VEO) channels were available on the cap but **were not connected** during recording.\n* **Physio:** ECG and GSR/EDA were recorded via auxiliary channels.\n---\n## EEG Preprocessing\nAll preprocessing was performed in **MATLAB R2020b** using **EEGLAB 2023.0** and **ERPLAB 9.10**. The full, commented pipeline is provided in `code/Preprocessing_EEG.m`.\n### Steps\n1. **Band‑pass filter:** 0.1–30 Hz (zero‑phase Hamming‑windowed FIR)\n2. **Downsample** to **250 Hz**\n3. **Re‑reference** to average mastoids (M1, M2)\n4. **Bad‑channel detection** using *clean_rawdata* (autocorrelation criterion = 0.8)\n5. **ICA** with *runica*\n6. **Automatic IC rejection** using **ADJUST** and **SASICA**\n7. **Spherical interpolation** of removed channels\n8. **Epoching:** −200 to 5000 ms relative to stimulus onset\n9. **Baseline correction:** −200 ms pre‑stimulus\n10. **Artifact rejection:** Step 1 – absolute amplitude on channels 1–30, epochs rejected if amplitude exceeded ±200 µV within −200 to 5000 ms. Step 2 – FASTER epoch_properties on channels 1–30, epochs rejected if any metric exceeded |z| > 2.\n11. **Condition‑wise averaging** using ERPLAB\n---\n## Derivatives & Ancillary Data\n### `derivatives/processed_erps/`\nAveraged ERP files (`.erp`) for each participant and session after preprocessing.\n### `derivatives/side_effects_blinding_effectiveness/`\n* `side_effects_blinding_effectiveness_english.csv` — _blinding effectiveness and side effects questionnaire\n* `side_effects_blinding_effectiveness_data_dictionary.csv` — data dictionary with variable names and value coding\n### `code/`\n* MATLAB preprocessing script and documentation: `Preprocessing_EEG.m`\n---","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"Łukasz Okruszek","sessions":["1","2"],"size_bytes":55976306491,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["EmotionProcessingandRegulationtask"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:29:43.635437+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2025-10-29T13:18:40.300Z","dataset_modified_at":"2025-12-29T13:12:27.000Z"},"total_files":239,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds006861","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README.md","participants.json","participants.tsv","task-EmotionProcessingandRegulationtask_events.json"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"bb14976d0f5322ef","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T19:11:27.835117+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Affect"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.8,"modality":0.9,"type":0.8},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot by construct and stimulus format is: **\"EEG: Three armed bandit gambling task\"** (Healthy, Visual, Affect). It demonstrates the convention that when the primary research aim concerns affective/reward/emotion processing (even with ratings/responses), the **Type** is labeled **Affect** and **Modality** is labeled by the stimulus channel (here visual stimuli). This guides mapping the current emotion regulation task with static images to (Visual, Affect). Few-shot clinical/intervention examples (e.g., Parkinson’s oddball labeled Clinical/Intervention) indicate Clinical/Intervention is used when the cohort is clinical and/or the purpose is explicitly clinical biomarker/therapy in a disorder; that does not apply here because participants are explicitly healthy.","metadata_analysis":"Key facts from the README:\n1) Population/pathology: \"**N = 120 right‑handed, neurologically healthy adults with normal or corrected‑to‑normal vision**.\"\n2) Task/stimulus modality: \"On each trial, **they viewed a static image for 5 s** and either watched or reappraised it as instructed.\" Also: trials include \"watch-neutral, watch-negative, reappraise-negative\" and participants rated \"**arousal**\" and \"**valence**\".\n3) Intervention context (not a clinical cohort): \"Emotion Processing and Regulation task conducted with **transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)**\" with sessions \"**Sham stimulation**\" and \"**Active stimulation**\".","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information (only an OSF preprint link is provided; no abstract text included in the metadata).","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: \"neurologically healthy adults\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when participants are described as healthy controls/healthy adults, label **Healthy**.\n- ALIGN.\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: \"viewed a static image\" and content is \"social, non-social\" images.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: image-based paradigms map to **Visual** (e.g., Healthy+Visual in the gambling task example).\n- ALIGN.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: \"Emotion Processing and Regulation\" with conditions \"watch-neutral, watch-negative, reappraise-negative\" and ratings of \"arousal\" and \"valence\".\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: affective processing paradigms map to **Affect** (e.g., three-armed bandit gambling labeled Affect due to reward/affective processing). Clinical/Intervention is reserved for explicitly clinical cohorts/purposes (e.g., Parkinson’s cohort).\n- ALIGN (despite tDCS being present, the cohort is not clinical and the primary construct is emotion/affect regulation).","decision_summary":"Pathology (top-2):\n1) Healthy — supported by: \"N = 120... neurologically healthy adults\"; also no disorder recruitment described.\n2) Unknown — would apply if health status were not stated.\nFinal: Healthy. Confidence justified by 1 explicit direct statement of healthy status plus consistent context.\n\nModality (top-2):\n1) Visual — supported by: \"viewed a static image\"; task uses image content (social/non-social) and visual rating prompts.\n2) Multisensory — only if images were paired with sounds/tactile cues (not indicated).\nFinal: Visual. Confidence justified by multiple explicit image-viewing descriptions.\n\nType (top-2):\n1) Affect — supported by: \"Emotion Processing and Regulation\"; conditions include \"watch-negative\" and \"reappraise-negative\"; ratings of \"arousal\" and \"valence\".\n2) Clinical/Intervention — plausible because tDCS is an intervention (\"sham\" vs \"active\"), but there is no clinical population and the research construct is emotion regulation rather than clinical treatment.\nFinal: Affect. Confidence reflects strong construct-level wording but acknowledges runner-up due to stimulation manipulation."}},"computed_title":"Targeted Neuromodulation of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Alleviates Altered Affective Response Evaluation in Lonely Individuals","nchans_counts":[{"val":37,"count":239}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1000.0,"count":239}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.312071+00:00","total_duration_s":358473.699,"author_year":"Maka2025_Targeted","canonical_name":null}}