{"success":true,"database":"eegdash","data":{"_id":"69d16e05897a7725c66f4cc3","dataset_id":"nm000248","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":11,"ages":[62,55,56,37,51,62,52,40,58,50,56],"age_min":37,"age_max":62,"age_mean":52.63636363636363,"species":null,"sex_distribution":{"m":7,"f":4},"handedness_distribution":null},"experimental_modalities":null,"external_links":{"source_url":"https://nemar.org/dataexplorer/detail/nm000248","osf_url":null,"github_url":null,"paper_url":null},"funding":[],"ingestion_fingerprint":"a0fff9e2349ff897cf90a05362cb89e7e9452f1ca725e91c3367e62fd0ec9997","license":"CC-BY-4.0","n_contributing_labs":null,"name":"BigP3BCI Study L — 6x6 multi-paradigm (11 ALS subjects)","readme":"# BigP3BCI Study L — 6x6 multi-paradigm (11 ALS subjects)\nBigP3BCI Study L — 6x6 multi-paradigm (11 ALS subjects).\n## Dataset Overview\n- **Code**: Mainsah2025-L\n- **Paradigm**: p300\n- **DOI**: 10.13026/0byy-ry86\n- **Subjects**: 11\n- **Sessions per subject**: 1\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**: 11\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"],"size_bytes":818463177,"source":"nemar","storage":{"backend":"nemar","base":"s3://nemar/nm000248","raw_key":"dataset_description.json","dep_keys":["README.md","participants.json","participants.tsv"]},"study_design":null,"study_domain":null,"tasks":["p300"],"timestamps":{"digested_at":"2026-04-30T14:09:38.934751+00:00","dataset_created_at":null,"dataset_modified_at":"2026-03-26T06:45:00Z"},"total_files":330,"computed_title":"BigP3BCI Study L — 6x6 multi-paradigm (11 ALS subjects)","nchans_counts":[{"val":16,"count":330}],"sfreq_counts":[{"val":256.00005870719417,"count":220},{"val":256.0000825640258,"count":110}],"stats_computed_at":"2026-05-01T13:49:34.646331+00:00","total_duration_s":65008.69444052092,"tagger_meta":{"config_hash":"3557b68bca409f28","metadata_hash":"6eb7d5aac3ceedf3","model":"openai/gpt-5.2","tagged_at":"2026-04-07T09:32:40.872789+00:00"},"tags":{"pathology":["Other"],"modality":["Visual"],"type":["Attention"],"confidence":{"pathology":0.8,"modality":0.9,"type":0.7},"reasoning":{"few_shot_analysis":"Most similar few-shot examples by paradigm structure are the oddball/target-vs-nontarget tasks: (1) “Cross-modal Oddball Task.” (Parkinson’s; target/oddball structure with cue-evoked responses) and (2) “EEG: Three-Stim Auditory Oddball…” (TBI; standard/target/novel tones). These examples illustrate the catalog convention that target-vs-nontarget paradigms are labeled by the dominant stimulus modality (auditory vs multisensory) and typically map to an attention/perception construct rather than motor. Additionally, the schizophrenia example uses an explicitly visual discrimination paradigm and is labeled Visual + Perception, guiding the choice that stimulus-discrimination style tasks can be categorized as Perception when the primary aim is detecting/discriminating stimuli.","metadata_analysis":"Key metadata facts: (1) Clinical population is explicit: “Clinical population: ALS” and “Health status: patients” (readme). (2) Paradigm and event structure are explicit: “Paradigm: p300” and “Events: Target=2, NonTarget=1” (readme). (3) Visual stimulus channel is explicit in multiple places: HED annotations include “Visual-presentation” under both Target and NonTarget, and tags state “Modality: visual” (readme). (4) Task context indicates P300 BCI speller: “Applications: speller” and “Online feedback: True” (readme).","paper_abstract_analysis":"No useful paper information.","evidence_alignment_check":"Pathology: Metadata says “Clinical population: ALS” and “Health status: patients” (ALIGN with choosing a non-Healthy pathology). Few-shot pattern suggests using the recruited clinical diagnosis when explicit (e.g., Parkinson’s, TBI, Epilepsy examples). ALIGN; however ALS is not an allowed specific label, so it must map to “Other.”\n\nModality: Metadata says “Modality: visual” and HED tags show “Visual-presentation” for Target/NonTarget (ALIGN with Visual). Few-shot pattern in oddball/discrimination examples labels modality by stimulus channel (auditory oddball→Auditory; cross-modal oddball→Multisensory). ALIGN.\n\nType: Metadata indicates a P300 target/non-target BCI speller: “Paradigm: p300,” “Events: Target=2, NonTarget=1,” and “Applications: speller.” Few-shot pattern for target/oddball-like paradigms supports an Attention/Perception-style labeling rather than Motor/Memory. This partially aligns but is not uniquely determined: selective attention to targets (Attention) vs stimulus detection/discrimination (Perception) are both plausible. No direct conflict; ambiguity remains.","decision_summary":"Top-2 candidates per category:\n\nPathology:\n1) Other — Supported by explicit recruitment of a clinical group not in the allowed list: “Clinical population: ALS”; “Health status: patients.”\n2) Unknown — Would apply only if diagnosis were not stated; rejected because ALS is explicitly stated.\nAlignment: Few-shot conventions and metadata align on using the recruited diagnosis; mapped to Other due to label set limits.\nConfidence justification: 2 explicit quotes (“Clinical population: ALS”, “Health status: patients”).\n\nModality:\n1) Visual — Supported by “Modality: visual” plus HED tags “Visual-presentation” for both Target and NonTarget, and implied 6x6 speller grid (“6x6 multi-paradigm”, “Applications: speller”).\n2) Multisensory — Possible if additional auditory/tactile cues existed; rejected because events are explicitly visual in HED.\nAlignment: Strong alignment between explicit metadata and few-shot modality conventions.\nConfidence justification: 3+ explicit supports (“Modality: visual”, HED “Visual-presentation” for Target, HED “Visual-presentation” for NonTarget).\n\nType:\n1) Attention — P300 target detection in a speller relies on selective attention to targets (“Paradigm: p300”; “Target, NonTarget”; “speller”; “Online feedback: True”).\n2) Perception — Also plausible as a stimulus discrimination/detection task (target vs non-target).\nAlignment: Few-shot oddball-like examples suggest Attention/Perception categories for target paradigms; metadata doesn’t uniquely force one.\nConfidence justification: multiple supporting task-structure quotes but construct-level ambiguity remains."}},"canonical_name":null,"name_confidence":0.55,"name_meta":{"suggested_at":"2026-04-14T10:18:35.344Z","model":"openai/gpt-5.2 + openai/gpt-5.4-mini + deterministic_fallback"},"name_source":"author_year","author_year":"Mainsah2025_BigP3BCI_L"}}