ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Studying memory processes at different levels with simultaneous depth and surface EEG recordings.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Universal rhythmic architecture uncovers two modes of neural dynamics.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Functional segregation of rostral and caudal hippocampus in associative memory.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Influence of mindfulness meditation on intracranial EEG parameters in epileptic and non-epileptic brain areas.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2024Article
- Simultaneous invasive and non-invasive recordings in humans: A novel Rosetta stone for deciphering brain activity.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2024Review
- Identification of Early Hippocampal Dynamics during Recognition Memory with Independent Component Analysis.eNeuro · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigating cognitive brain functions using non-invasive electrophysiology can be challenging due to the particularities of the task-related EEG activity, the depth of the activated brain areas, and the extent of the networks involved. Stereoelectroencephalographic (SEEG) investigations in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy offer an extraordinary opportunity to validate information derived from non-invasive recordings at macro-scales. The SEEG approach can provide brain activity with high spatial specificity during tasks that target specific cognitive processes (e.g., memory). Full validation is possible only when performing simultaneous scalp SEEG recordings, which allows recording signals in the exact same brain state. This is the approach we have taken in 12 subjects performing a visual memory task that requires the recognition of previously viewed objects. The intracranial signals on 965 contact pairs have been compared to 391 simultaneously recorded scalp signals at a regional and whole-brain level, using multivariate pattern analysis. The results show that the task conditions are best captured by intracranial sensors, despite the limited spatial coverage of SEEG electrodes, compared to the whole-brain non-invasive recordings. Applying beamformer source reconstruction or independent component analysis does not result in an improvement of the multivariate task decoding performance using surface sensor data. By analyzing a joint scalp and SEEG dataset, we investigated whether the two types of signals carry complementary information that might improve the machine-learning classifier performance. This joint analysis revealed that the results are driven by the modality exhibiting best individual performance, namely SEEG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.