Deployed d264e12 with MkDocs version: 1.6.0

03_cogdataset/index.html

@@ -307,13 +307,12 @@ <h4 id="ieeg-data"><strong>iEEG data</strong></h4>
 <p>European Data Format files used for storing and exchanging time-series biological and physiological data</p>
 <p>EDF files are designed to accommodate data from multiple channels, allowing researchers to store and manage data collected simultaneously from different sensors or electrodes. The format supports both raw signal data and associated metadata, including information about sampling rates, units of measurement, patient demographics, and recording conditions.</p>
 <h2 id="data-acquisition">Data Acquisition</h2>
-<p>The Cogitate dataset encompasses three distinct neuroimaging modalities, along with synchronized eye-tracking and behavioral data linked to each of these modalities. Here we detail the acquisition protocol for each modality in the corresponding data release: M-EEG</p>
+<p>The Cogitate dataset encompasses three distinct neuroimaging modalities, along with synchronized eye-tracking and behavioral data linked to each of these modalities. Here we detail the acquisition protocol for each modality in the corresponding data release: M-EEG, iEEG</p>
 <h3 id="stimuli">Stimuli</h3>
 <p>Stimuli belonged to four categories that naturally fell into two groups that were clearly distinct from each other: pictures (20 faces and 20 objects) and symbols (20 letters and 20 false-fonts). Face stimuli were created using the FaceGen Modeler 3.1 program and object stimuli were taken from the Object Databank (Tarr, 1996). Faces and objects were grey-scaled (RGB: 125, 125, 125), and manipulated to have similar size and equal luminance using the SHINE toolbox (Willenbockel et al., 2010). Equal proportions of male and female faces were presented. They all had hair and belonged to different ethnicities (e.g., Caucasian, Asian, African, American) to facilitate face individuation. The orientation of the stimuli was manipulated, such that half of the stimuli from each category had a side view and the other half a front view. All letter stimuli and false fonts were generated with MAXON CINEMA 4D Studio (RC-R20) 20.059 on macOS 10.14, appearing in gray (RGB: 125, 125, 125). Three views were rendered for each font set (real font, false/pseudo font) at 0°, 30° and -30° horizontal viewing angle with the following settings: Extrusion depth 9.79% of character height, camera distance 5.65 times character height and 18° above the center of the letter (High Angle), with a simulated focal length of 135 mm (35 mm equiv.). All stimuli were presented on a rectangular aperture at an average visual angle of 6 ̊ by 6 ̊.</p>
 <h3 id="procedure">Procedure</h3>
-<p>Stimuli were presented in a sequence, all supra-threshold, with half being task-relevant and half task-irrelevant. Only one stimulus was present on the screen at any given time. To define task relevance, on a subset of stimuli, subjects were instructed to detect (press a button; non-speeded response) the occurrences of two targets belonging to two different categories, regardless of their orientation. This online reporting allowed for an explicit assessment of subjects’ performance, and engaged report-related areas, which were later identified in one of the planned analyses. In each block, subjects were asked to perform the task on stimuli from different categories, thereby redefining task relevance of the different stimuli.</p>
-<p>The experiment was divided into 10 runs, with 4 blocks each. During each block, a ratio of 34-38 trials was presented, with 32 non-targets (8 of each category) and 2-6 targets (number chosen randomly). A block started by notifying the subject about the two target stimuli. These were either pictorial (faces and objects) or symbolic (letters and false fonts). These couplings were designed to create a clear difference between the task-relevant and the task-irrelevant stimuli, thereby making their classification as either relevant or irrelevant trivial. At the beginning of each block, the specific target stimuli were disclosed by presenting the instruction “detect face A and object B” or "detect letter C and false-font D" for a face/object or letter/false font block, respectively (targets did not repeat across blocks). Each run contained two blocks of the Face/Object task and two blocks of the Letter/False-font task. The order was counterbalanced across runs. Subjects were further asked to maintain central fixation on a circle throughout each trial. Gaze was monitored online through an eye tracker, and repeated calibrations were performed to assure good quality eye tracking data.</p>
-<p>Each block included a sequence of stimuli belonging to all four categories, and each stimulus was presented for one of the three predefined durations (500, 1000, 1500 ms), followed by a blank period, such that overall trial length was fixed at 2000 ms. To avoid periodic presentation of the stimuli, random jitter was added to the end of each trial (mean inter-trial interval of 400 ms, jittered 200-2000 ms, with truncated exponential distribution). Each block contained three different trial types: i) Task Relevant Targets, which were the two stimuli being detected (e.g., the specific face and the specific object); ii) Task Relevant Non-Targets, which were the stimuli from the task relevant categories that were not the two specific targets (e.g., other faces and other objects); and iii) Task Irrelevant Stimuli, which were the stimuli from the two other categories (e.g., letters and false-fonts).</p>
+<p>Stimuli were presented sequentially, all supra-threshold, with half being task-relevant and the other half task-irrelevant. Only one stimulus was shown on the screen at any given time. To define task relevance, subjects were instructed to detect two targets from different categories, regardless of their orientation. This online reporting enabled an explicit assessment of subjects’ performance, engaging report-related areas for later analysis. Each block began with notification of the two target stimuli, either pictorial (faces and objects) or symbolic (letters and false fonts), creating a clear distinction between relevant and irrelevant stimuli. At the start of each block, specific target stimuli were revealed with instructions such as “detect face A and object B” or "detect letter C and false-font D." Targets did not repeat across blocks. Each run included two blocks of the Face/Object task and two blocks of the Letter/False-font task, with the order counterbalanced across runs. Subjects were instructed to maintain central fixation throughout each trial. Gaze was monitored online through an eye tracker, with repeated calibrations ensuring good quality data.</p>
+<p>Each block comprised stimuli from all four categories, with each stimulus displayed for 500, 1000, or 1500 ms, followed by a blank interval, ensuring a consistent trial duration of 2000 ms. Within each block, three trial types were presented: i) Task Relevant Targets, consisting of the specific stimuli participants were tasked with detecting; ii) Task Relevant Non-Targets, encompassing stimuli from relevant categories that were not designated targets; and iii) Task Irrelevant Stimuli, comprising stimuli from the remaining categories.</p>
 <h3 id="m-eeg-data-acquisition">M-EEG Data Acquisition</h3>
 <p>M-EEG recordings were acquired at the Centre for Human Brain Health (CHBH) of University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, and at the Center for MRI Research of Peking University (PKU) in China.</p>
 <h4 id="hardware">Hardware</h4>

index.html

@@ -202,5 +202,5 @@ <h1 id="welcome-to-the-cogitate-data-release-documentation">Welcome to the Cogit
 
 <!--
 MkDocs version : 1.6.0
-Build Date UTC : 2024-05-07 04:08:04.028051+00:00
+Build Date UTC : 2024-05-07 08:15:30.579705+00:00
 -->