{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"6953f4249276ef1ee07a3479","dataset_id":"ds006963","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Şahcan Özdemir","Eren Günseli","Daniel Schneider"],"bids_version":"v1.10.1","contact_info":["Şahcan Özdemir"],"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":"doi:10.18112/openneuro.ds006963.v1.0.1","datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":32,"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/ds006963","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"6a420bb1ec7209c09d0e2ab4549b753b2bb78d1f439694ead9ba80f407ed275d","license":"CC0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"Motor Control Processes Moderate Visual Working Memory Gating Dataset","readme":"This dataset accompanies the paper “Motor Control Processes Moderate\nWorking Memory Gating,” published in The Journal of Neuroscience. It contains\nthe raw EEG recordings (not preprocessed) from the study, as well as each participant’s\nbehavioral data within the EEG dataset struct (labeled as EEG.behaviordata).\nMean age of subjects is 23.7 (sd=2.9). For any of your inquiries,\nplease reach out to the corresponding author: oezdemir@ifado.de\nYou can find the explanation of triggers at\u0000\"task-VisuomotorDelayedMatchToSampleWithInterference_events.json\". For any of your inquiries,\n\"task-VisuomotorDelayedMatchToSampleWithInterference_events.json\".\nWhile using the dataset, please cite: Özdemir, Ş., Günseli, E., & Schneider,\nD. (2025). Motor control processes moderate visual working memory gating. The\nJournal of Neuroscience, 45(47), e0673252025. https://doi.org/10.1523/\nJNEUROSCI.0673-25.2025\nTo reach the analysis codes, please visit the OSF\nproject (https://osf.io/7fve8).\nParticipants' subject numbers were randomized to ensure anonymity and do not reflect\nthe order of data collection. The dataset includes 32 participants in total. Two\nparticipants were excluded from all analyses due to misunderstanding of the\ntask rules (one participant didn't follow the interference task, an the other participant\ntried to use the response knobs during the target presentation). One participant was included\nonly in the behavioral analysis because of abnormal EEG data, and one participant was excluded\nbased on predefined exclusion criteria. However these excluded participants are shared within\nthis dataset to further ensure transparency. All cases are documented in the relevant notes and\nthe participant info list \"participants.tsv\".\nFor detailed methodological information, please refer to the paper or the\nassociated OSF project (https://osf.io/7fve8). A brief summary of the\nexperimental procedure is provided here.\nThe experiment used a 2×2 within-subject design with four conditions:\nsame-hand motor interference, different-hand motor interference, same-hand\nvisuomotor interference, and different-hand visuomotor interference.\nParticipants also completed 240 baseline trials with no interference. The\nexperiment included 10 blocks, each containing 120 trials.\nEach trial began with a colored square or diamond presented for 500 ms. After\na 2900 ms delay, participants reported the target color using a color wheel\ncontrolled by the left or right knob. The shape of the stimulus indicated\nwhich hand to use, and this mapping was counterbalanced across participants.\nParticipants had 4000 ms to respond, and each trial ended with an inter-trial\ninterval between 800 and 1400 ms.\nIn two-thirds of the trials, an interference task occurred during the delay.\nAt 900 ms, a left- or right-pointing triangle appeared, and participants\npressed the knob with the corresponding hand. In the motor interference\ncondition, these triangles were gray. In the visuomotor interference\ncondition, the triangles were colored, with their hue shifted 60–90 degrees\nfrom the target color, introducing visual interference. In the remaining\nno-interference trials, a gray up- or down-pointing triangle appeared, and\nparticipants made no response until the color wheel appeared.","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":"Daniel Schneider","sessions":[],"size_bytes":56696992189,"source":"openneuro","study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["VisuomotorDelayedMatchToSampleWithInterference"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-22T12:29:53.654813+00:00","dataset_created_at":"2025-11-28T10:25:59.594Z","dataset_modified_at":"2026-04-21T06:39:23.000Z"},"total_files":32,"storage":{"backend":"s3","base":"s3://openneuro.org/ds006963","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["CHANGES","README","participants.tsv","task-VisuomotorDelayedMatchToSampleWithInterference_events.json"]},"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"4a051be509a0e3d0","metadata_hash":"51a3106303d4a88f","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-01-20T19:15:59.502439+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Healthy"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Memory"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.65,"modality":0.9,"type":0.8},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot example by construct is the digit span dataset (Healthy + Memory), which is labeled Type=Memory because the primary aim is working memory load/maintenance (even though the sensory modality there is Auditory). This guides mapping the present dataset’s “working memory gating” delayed-report paradigm to Type=Memory. For Modality conventions, the schizophrenia spectrum visual discrimination example shows that when stimuli are on-screen dots/visual displays, Modality=Visual even if responses are motor (mouse/hand actions). This supports using Visual here despite knob presses and motor-interference manipulations.","metadata_analysis":"Population: no clinical recruitment is described; instead the README states a typical young-adult sample: \"Mean age of subjects is 23.7 (sd=2.9)\" and \"The dataset includes 32 participants in total.\"\nTask/stimuli: clearly visual stimuli and delayed visual report: \"Each trial began with a colored square or diamond presented for 500 ms.\"; \"At 900 ms, a left- or right-pointing triangle appeared\"; \"participants reported the target color using a color wheel\"; and in visuomotor interference \"the triangles were colored, with their hue shifted 60–90 degrees from the target color, introducing visual interference.\".\nResearch construct: explicitly framed as working memory gating: \"Motor Control Processes Moderate Working Memory Gating,\" and citation: \"Motor control processes moderate visual working memory gating.\"","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata says nothing about a disorder and describes a standard young adult sample (e.g., \"Mean age of subjects is 23.7\"; \"32 participants\"). Few-shot pattern suggests that absent explicit diagnosis, label as Healthy. ALIGN.\nModality: Metadata says stimuli are visual (\"colored square or diamond\"; \"triangle appeared\"; \"color wheel\"). Few-shot pattern suggests classifying by stimulus/input channel (visual) rather than motor response. ALIGN.\nType: Metadata explicitly frames the study around working memory (\"Working Memory Gating\"; \"visual working memory gating\") and uses a delayed match/report structure (stimulus → delay → report). Few-shot convention (digit span labeled Memory) suggests working-memory paradigms map to Type=Memory. ALIGN.","decision_summary":"Pathology top-2: (1) Healthy—supported by lack of any clinical recruitment plus normative sample description: \"Mean age...23.7\" and \"32 participants\"; (2) Unknown—possible because README never explicitly says “healthy”. Winner: Healthy (ALIGN with few-shot convention that non-clinical cohorts are Healthy). Confidence reflects inference without an explicit “healthy controls” phrase.\nModality top-2: (1) Visual—multiple explicit visual stimulus/report quotes: \"colored square or diamond\", \"left- or right-pointing triangle appeared\", \"reported the target color using a color wheel\", plus \"triangles were colored...introducing visual interference\"; (2) Motor—plausible due to knob presses and motor-interference manipulation, but motor is response/secondary manipulation rather than primary stimulus channel. Winner: Visual (ALIGN). High confidence due to 3+ direct stimulus descriptions.\nType top-2: (1) Memory—explicit: \"Working Memory Gating\" and \"visual working memory gating\", plus delayed report (\"After a 2900 ms delay, participants reported the target color\"); (2) Motor—because motor control processes are manipulated (\"motor interference\"), but the core construct is visual working memory gating. Winner: Memory (ALIGN)."}},"computed_title":"Motor Control Processes Moderate Visual Working Memory Gating Dataset","nchans_counts":[{"val":64,"count":32}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":1000.0,"count":32}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-04-22T23:16:00.312218+00:00","total_duration_s":306950.695,"author_year":"Ozdemir2025","canonical_name":null}}