{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"69d16e05897a7725c66f4c90","dataset_id":"nm000187","associated_paper_doi":null,"authors":["Boyla Mainsah","Chance Fleeting","Thomas Balmat","Eric Sellers","Leslie Collins"],"bids_version":"1.9.0","contact_info":null,"contributing_labs":null,"data_processed":false,"dataset_doi":null,"datatypes":["eeg"],"demographics":{"subjects_count":8,"ages":[],"age_min":null,"age_max":null,"age_mean":null,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"m":3,"f":1},"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://nemar.org/dataexplorer/detail/nm000187","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"3c038c7fb48f08a697a3b8d70040176d25025c7d4dc81ec1bd223ed4ce7229c4","license":"CC-BY-4.0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"BigP3BCI Study N — 9x8 dry/wet electrode comparison (8 ALS subjects)","readme":"# BigP3BCI Study N — 9x8 dry/wet electrode comparison (8 ALS subjects)\nBigP3BCI Study N — 9x8 dry/wet electrode comparison (8 ALS subjects).\n## Dataset Overview\n- **Code**: Mainsah2025-N\n- **Paradigm**: p300\n- **DOI**: 10.13026/0byy-ry86\n- **Subjects**: 8\n- **Sessions per subject**: 2\n- **Events**: Target=2, NonTarget=1\n- **Trial interval**: [0, 1.0] s\n## Acquisition\n- **Sampling rate**: 256.0 Hz\n- **Number of channels**: 16\n- **Channel types**: eeg=16\n- **Montage**: standard_1020\n- **Hardware**: g.USBamp (g.tec)\n- **Line frequency**: 60.0 Hz\n## Participants\n- **Number of subjects**: 8\n- **Health status**: patients\n- **Clinical population**: ALS\n## Experimental Protocol\n- **Paradigm**: p300\n- **Number of classes**: 2\n- **Class labels**: Target, NonTarget\n## HED Event Annotations\nSchema: HED 8.4.0 | Browse: https://www.hedtags.org/hed-schema-browser\n```\n  Target\n    ├─ Sensory-event\n    ├─ Experimental-stimulus\n    ├─ Visual-presentation\n    └─ Target\n  NonTarget\n    ├─ Sensory-event\n    ├─ Experimental-stimulus\n    ├─ Visual-presentation\n    └─ Non-target\n```\n## Paradigm-Specific Parameters\n- **Detected paradigm**: p300\n## Signal Processing\n- **Feature extraction**: P300_ERP_detection\n## Cross-Validation\n- **Method**: calibration-then-test\n- **Evaluation type**: within_subject\n## BCI Application\n- **Applications**: speller\n- **Environment**: laboratory\n- **Online feedback**: True\n## Tags\n- **Modality**: visual\n- **Type**: perception\n## Documentation\n- **Description**: BigP3BCI: the largest public P300 BCI dataset, containing EEG recordings from ~267 subjects across 20 studies using 6x6 or 9x8 character grids with various stimulus paradigms.\n- **DOI**: 10.13026/0byy-ry86\n- **License**: CC-BY-4.0\n- **Investigators**: Boyla Mainsah, Chance Fleeting, Thomas Balmat, Eric Sellers, Leslie Collins\n- **Institution**: Duke University; East Tennessee State University\n- **Country**: US\n- **Repository**: PhysioNet\n- **Data URL**: https://physionet.org/content/bigp3bci/1.0.0/\n- **Publication year**: 2025\n## References\nAppelhoff, S., Sanderson, M., Brooks, T., Vliet, M., Quentin, R., Holdgraf, C., Chaumon, M., Mikulan, E., Tavabi, K., Hochenberger, R., Welke, D., Brunner, C., Rockhill, A., Larson, E., Gramfort, A. and Jas, M. (2019). MNE-BIDS: Organizing electrophysiological data into the BIDS format and facilitating their analysis. Journal of Open Source Software 4: (1896). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01896\nPernet, C. R., Appelhoff, S., Gorgolewski, K. J., Flandin, G., Phillips, C., Delorme, A., Oostenveld, R. (2019). EEG-BIDS, an extension to the brain imaging data structure for electroencephalography. Scientific Data, 6, 103. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0104-8\n---\nGenerated by MOABB 1.5.0 (Mother of All BCI Benchmarks)\nhttps://github.com/NeuroTechX/moabb","recording_modality":["eeg"],"senior_author":null,"sessions":["0","1"],"size_bytes":370321615,"source":"nemar","storage":{"backend":"nemar","base":"s3://nemar/nm000187","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["README.md","participants.json","participants.tsv"]},"study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["p300"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-30T14:08:52.039628+00:00","dataset_created_at":null,"dataset_modified_at":"2026-04-02T21:18:42Z"},"total_files":160,"computed_title":"BigP3BCI Study N — 9x8 dry/wet electrode comparison (8 ALS subjects)","nchans_counts":[{"val":16,"count":160}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":256.0,"count":160}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-05-01T13:49:34.645430+00:00","total_duration_s":29523.125,"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"3557b68bca409f28","metadata_hash":"58708dfb2cce61df","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:40.872789+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Other"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Attention"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.9,"modality":0.9,"type":0.7},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot paradigms are the oddball/P300-style target vs non-target designs, e.g., (1) “Cross-modal Oddball Task.” (Parkinson’s) describing “standard … oddball …” pre-cues and a cue-evoked delta/theta/P300-like analysis, and (2) “EEG: Three-Stim Auditory Oddball…” (TBI) with explicit “Standard Tone/Target Tone/Novel Tone” events. These examples guide the convention that target/non-target ERP paradigms map to a stimulus modality label (visual/auditory/multisensory) based on the presented stimuli, and that the cognitive Type is typically an attention/perception construct (not ‘Motor’ just because responses occur). However, those examples’ Pathology/Type reflect their explicit recruited populations and study focus; for this dataset, explicit metadata says ALS patients and a P300 speller BCI context, so we follow the same convention but use the ALS fact for Pathology and visual-stimulus fact for Modality.","metadata_analysis":"Key quoted facts from the dataset metadata:\n- Clinical population: “**Clinical population**: ALS” and also the title “(8 **ALS** subjects)” plus “Health status: **patients**”.\n- Paradigm/task: “**Paradigm**: **p300**” and “Tasks: [\"**p300**\"]”.\n- Visual stimulus evidence: HED annotations for both classes include “**Visual-presentation**” under Target and NonTarget.\n- Target/non-target structure: “Events: **Target=2, NonTarget=1**” and “Class labels: **Target, NonTarget**”.\n- BCI/speller context: “BCI Application — **Applications: speller**” and “Online feedback: **True**”.","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology:\n- Metadata says: “Clinical population: ALS”, “Health status: patients”, title “(8 ALS subjects)”.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: when a clinical group is explicitly recruited (e.g., Parkinson’s, TBI), Pathology should reflect that clinical recruitment.\n- Alignment: ALIGN (explicit clinical recruitment). Since ALS is not an allowed Pathology label, it must be mapped to “Other”.\n\nModality:\n- Metadata says: HED tags include “Visual-presentation” for Target/NonTarget; also “Applications: speller” and “Paradigm: p300” consistent with visual P300 speller grids.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: modality follows stimulus channel (e.g., auditory oddball -> Auditory; cross-modal -> Multisensory).\n- Alignment: ALIGN → Visual.\n\nType:\n- Metadata says: “Paradigm: p300”, “Events: Target, NonTarget”, and a speller BCI context with attended targets.\n- Few-shot pattern suggests: oddball/target-detection ERP paradigms are typically categorized under attention/perception constructs (not Motor).\n- Alignment: mostly ALIGN, but Type could plausibly be either Attention or Perception; metadata even includes a non-authoritative tag “Type: perception”. We select the stronger interpretation based on the attended-target P300 construct (Attention).","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates and selection:\n\nPathology:\n1) Other — Supported by “Clinical population: ALS” and “Health status: patients” and title “(8 ALS subjects)”; ALS is a specific clinical population but not in the allowed list, so maps to Other.\n2) Healthy — Not supported (contradicted by “patients”, “ALS”).\nWinner: Other. (Alignment: yes; explicit metadata fact.)\n\nModality:\n1) Visual — Supported by HED “Visual-presentation” for both Target and NonTarget, and “Applications: speller” consistent with visual grid flashes.\n2) Multisensory — Weak/no support; no auditory/tactile stimuli described.\nWinner: Visual. (Alignment: yes.)\n\nType:\n1) Attention — Supported by P300 target/non-target detection (“Class labels: Target, NonTarget”; “Events: Target=2, NonTarget=1”) requiring attending to target stimuli in a speller.\n2) Perception — Also plausible given stimulus discrimination and the dataset’s tag “Type: perception”, but less specific to the core P300 attended-target construct than Attention.\nWinner: Attention. (Alignment: partial; some ambiguity vs Perception.)\n\nConfidence justification (evidence count):\n- Pathology high due to 3 explicit cues: “Clinical population: ALS”, “Health status: patients”, and title “ALS subjects”.\n- Modality very high due to multiple explicit HED ‘Visual-presentation’ annotations plus speller context.\n- Type moderate due to clear P300/target structure but genuine ambiguity between Attention vs Perception."}},"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.92,"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":"Mainsah2025_BigP3BCI_N"}}