register_version: 0.1.0 method_version: 0.1.0 readings: - id: NS-0001 subject: Awake human cortex type: B status: planned scale: perturbational value: null interval: null state: Awake, eyes open, at rest n: subjects: 123 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: Neural dynamics of working memory and TMS identifier: openneuro-ds008037 access: OpenNeuro ds008037 license: CC0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - SOURCE CHANGED 2026-09-17. Was Localize-MI, which verification showed to be non-commercial. This source is CC0, 123 subjects against 7, and TMS-EEG rather than intracranial stimulation - so it matches the benchmark paradigm more closely as well as licensing more cleanly. - 62 channels at 1000 Hz. Lower spatial density than the 256-channel benchmark setup; the interval widens under instrumentation_mismatch. - Localize-MI and ds004080 are retained as alternates for methodological comparison. See datasets/registry.yaml. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0002 subject: Human, REM sleep type: C status: planned scale: spontaneous_proxy value: null interval: null state: REM, scored by polysomnography n: subjects: 29 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: ANPHY-Sleep identifier: anphy-sleep access: OSF license: CC0 1.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - No perturbation delivered. Proxy substitution widens the interval and bars comparison with type A or B. - UNBLOCKED 2026-09-17. The license was previously recorded as unconfirmed and blocking. It is CC0 1.0, resolved via the OSF API after the web page failed to render a license twice. - PREFERRED UPGRADE - Tononi Serial Awakenings (registry key tononi-serial-awakenings) contrasts reported experience against its absence within the same sleep stage, in 39 subjects at 256 channels. That is a stronger reading than a stage label and should supersede this one before publication. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0003 subject: Human, NREM deep sleep type: C status: planned scale: spontaneous_proxy value: null interval: null state: N3, scored by polysomnography n: subjects: 29 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: ANPHY-Sleep identifier: anphy-sleep access: OSF license: CC0 1.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - No perturbation delivered. Proxy substitution. - UNBLOCKED 2026-09-17. CC0 1.0, resolved via the OSF API. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0004 subject: Human under propofol sedation type: C status: planned scale: spontaneous_proxy value: null interval: null state: Graded sedation, four levels n: subjects: 20 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: Chennu propofol sedation identifier: chennu-propofol access: University of Cambridge repository license: CC BY 2.0 UK commercial_use: permitted retrieved: null verified: false commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - No perturbation delivered. Proxy substitution. - Four sedation levels give an internal gradient, which is the strongest feature of this reading. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0005 subject: Comatose patient following cardiac arrest type: C status: planned scale: spontaneous_proxy value: null interval: null state: Comatose, continuous EEG monitoring n: subjects: null sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: Resting EEG in prolonged disorders of consciousness identifier: figshare-doc-resting access: Figshare 23552964 license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - SOURCE CHANGED 2026-09-17, AND A PRIOR FINDING WAS WRONG. An earlier sweep concluded that no openly licensed disorders-of-consciousness dataset existed and recorded that as a structural fact about the field. It exists - 59 patients plus 32 healthy controls, 62 electrodes, 250 Hz, CC BY 4.0, commercially usable. - Prolonged disorders of consciousness rather than post-cardiac-arrest coma. A different clinical population from I-CARE, and arguably the more relevant one. - Includes a healthy control group recorded on the same instrument, which is the comparison this reading most needs. - No perturbation delivered. Proxy substitution. - I-CARE is retained as a non-commercial alternate at far greater scale - 607 patients against 59. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0006 subject: Mouse cortex, awake, under single-pulse electrical stimulation type: B status: issued scale: perturbational value: 46.7 interval: low: 17.08 high: 76.33 basis: Standard error across the 24 sessions is 6.05, which describes only how well the group mean is determined. Widened to one standard deviation (29.62), the between-session spread actually observed, because the two wideners of METHOD.md section 5 that apply here — species extrapolation and instrumentation mismatch against the human benchmark setup — are systematic and are not reduced by measuring more sessions. Observed session values ranged 5.72 to 107.14. state: Awake n: subjects: 23 sessions: 24 trials: 9656 method_version: 0.3.0 computation: &id001 library: renzocom/PCIst version: '0' commit: ed7d85389c559cc6b65bf20c10f619dfe0acf5e6 parameter_set: mouse_spes_v1 parameters: baseline_window: - -800 - -2 response_window: - 2 - 800 k: 1.2 min_snr: 1.1 max_var: 99 embed: false n_steps: 100 resample: 500 source: &id002 dataset: Allen Institute cortical stimulation identifier: dandi-000458 access: DANDI Archive, version 0.230317.0039 license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-18' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Species extrapolation. The cortical geometry the method spatial assumptions rest on is not shared with human cortex, and the empirical human cutoff of METHOD.md 2.2 is deliberately not applied to this value. - Instrumentation mismatch. 30-channel mouse surface EEG against the 60-plus channel human benchmark setup. - Pooled across stimulation intensity, 10 to 100 microamps. METHOD.md 2.1 records a 5.4-fold variation of the quantity across that range, so this value is an aggregate and not comparable to a reading taken at a stated single intensity. - Pooled across stimulation depth. The reference publication reports deep and superficial stimulation separately and they differ; this reading does not separate them. - The resample rate of 500 Hz in mouse_spes_v1 is provisional. METHOD.md 2.1 records that the authors own rate was not stated in the methods available. - The deposit holds 24 sessions; the reference publication analyzed 31. This value is computed from a subset. - Computed during the reproduction gate. See gate/RESULT-3.md. - The interval overlaps that of NS-0011. These two readings alone do not establish a difference between the states; the paired per-session comparison recorded in gate/RESULT-3.md does, at 21 of 24 sessions. summary: Perturbational complexity measured in awake mouse cortex under single-pulse electrical stimulation, across 24 sessions from 23 animals at currents from 10 to 100 microamps, with an interval widened to the observed between-session spread because species and instrumentation differences from the human benchmark are not reduced by measuring more sessions. issued: &id003 date: '2026-09-18' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: &id004 modality: single-pulse electrical stimulation, biphasic waveform: biphasic pulse_width_ms: null repetition_rate_hz: null intensity: - 10 - 100 intensity_units: uA site: MOs (secondary motor cortex) depth: deep and superficial, pooled pooled_across_intensity: true rejection: channel_rule: source_flags trial_rule: amplitude trial_threshold_uv: - 549.1 - 1480.1 trial_threshold_rule: median + 5 x 1.4826 x MAD of the per-trial peak absolute baseline deflection, derived per session channels_excluded: 51 channels_retained: 669 trials_excluded: 1194 trials_retained: 26131 - id: NS-0007 subject: Domestic pig type: C status: planned scale: spontaneous_proxy value: null interval: null state: Graded sedation levels 1-5, with an ischemia and recovery arm n: subjects: 11 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: Pig graded sedation with cerebral ischemia and recovery identifier: openneuro-ds003380 access: OpenNeuro ds003380 license: CC0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - UNBLOCKED 2026-09-17, AND A PRIOR FINDING WAS WRONG. This was recorded as 'not yet measured by anyone' and gated on a funded commissioned study - the largest line item in the three-year plan. Open CC0 data exists with a graded depth series in 11 pigs. - Spontaneous recording, so this is a type C proxy rather than the type A perturbational reading originally planned. An original perturbational pig study would still say more, and is now an upgrade rather than a prerequisite. - Pigs are the reading with the most direct welfare and food-system consequence. The interval and the type must be stated with particular care. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0008 subject: Octopus type: A status: planned scale: perturbational value: null interval: null state: To be determined by protocol n: subjects: null sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: Octopus bimaculoides optic lobe calcium imaging, ex vivo identifier: dryad-octopus-optic-lobe access: Dryad doi:10.5061/dryad.c2fqz61f2 license: CC0 1.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - THE ORIGINAL CITATION WAS ERRONEOUS. Carried in planning as a type D cited value from a 2023 Nature paper. No such published complexity value exists. Open octopus data does exist and is CC0 - this entry now points at it. - EX VIVO. The animals were euthanized and the brain-and-eye explanted before imaging, with sensory stimuli delivered to isolated tissue. There is no awake state and no state contrast. This reading therefore says something about octopus neural tissue and NOTHING about whether a living octopus has anything going on. That distinction must survive into every presentation of it, or the reading should not be published at all. - Two-photon calcium imaging at 10 Hz, not electrophysiology. Preparation and modality extrapolation both apply. - The only in vivo octopus brain recording (Gutnick et al. 2023, 3 animals) is not deposited - the paper offers it from the lead contact on request. That request is worth making; it would convert this from an ex vivo footnote into a real reading. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0009 subject: Human cortical organoid type: B status: planned scale: perturbational value: null interval: null state: On multi-electrode array, stimulated n: subjects: null sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: Neuromodulation in neural organoids with shell MEAs identifier: dandi-001336-organoid-stim access: DANDI:001336 license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - UNBLOCKED 2026-09-17. This reading was to be made on rented MEA platform time. Open organoid data with electrical stimulation delivered exists - biphasic pulses at 5-60 uA through shell MEAs, with explicit post-stimulation sessions - so it becomes type B, reanalyzed from open data, at no cost. - Preparation extrapolation. There is no surrounding system for a response to propagate into, which is the condition the measure was designed around. - Three organoids only. Small n widens the interval substantially. - If a paid relationship with a platform provider is later established, it is disclosed in commissioned_by and fee. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null - id: NS-0010 subject: Frontier language model type: E status: planned scale: indicator_profile value: null interval: null state: Public API, default configuration, version pinned at assessment n: subjects: 1 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.1.0 computation: null source: dataset: Public API access identifier: null access: Public API license: Provider terms of service commercial_use: unconfirmed retrieved: null verified: false commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - NOT A SCALAR AND NOT ON THE PERTURBATIONAL AXIS. See METHOD.md section 3 and section 6.3. - L0 access. Eight of fourteen indicators assessable; six are not examined and the profile says so rather than scoring them absent. - Provider terms of service may restrict publication of evaluation results. Confirm before assessment. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: access_level: L0 assessable: 8 results: {} controls_applied: - vocabulary_free - paraphrase_invariance - negative_controls - rotating_holdout - id: NS-0011 subject: Mouse cortex, isoflurane anesthesia, under single-pulse electrical stimulation type: B status: issued scale: perturbational value: 23.45 interval: low: 6.87 high: 40.02 basis: Standard error across the 24 sessions is 3.38, which describes only how well the group mean is determined. Widened to one standard deviation (16.58), the between-session spread actually observed, because the two wideners of METHOD.md section 5 that apply here — species extrapolation and instrumentation mismatch against the human benchmark setup — are systematic and are not reduced by measuring more sessions. Observed session values ranged 2.44 to 67.60. state: Isoflurane anesthesia n: subjects: 23 sessions: 24 trials: 10213 method_version: 0.3.0 computation: *id001 source: *id002 commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Species extrapolation. The cortical geometry the method spatial assumptions rest on is not shared with human cortex, and the empirical human cutoff of METHOD.md 2.2 is deliberately not applied to this value. - Instrumentation mismatch. 30-channel mouse surface EEG against the 60-plus channel human benchmark setup. - Pooled across stimulation intensity, 10 to 100 microamps. METHOD.md 2.1 records a 5.4-fold variation of the quantity across that range, so this value is an aggregate and not comparable to a reading taken at a stated single intensity. - Pooled across stimulation depth. The reference publication reports deep and superficial stimulation separately and they differ; this reading does not separate them. - The resample rate of 500 Hz in mouse_spes_v1 is provisional. METHOD.md 2.1 records that the authors own rate was not stated in the methods available. - The deposit holds 24 sessions; the reference publication analyzed 31. This value is computed from a subset. - Computed during the reproduction gate. See gate/RESULT-3.md. - The interval overlaps that of NS-0006. See the note there. summary: Perturbational complexity measured in mouse cortex under isoflurane anesthesia and single-pulse electrical stimulation, across 24 sessions from 23 animals at currents from 10 to 100 microamps, on the same instrumentation and parameters as NS-0006. issued: *id003 supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: *id004 rejection: channel_rule: source_flags trial_rule: amplitude trial_threshold_uv: - 549.1 - 1480.1 trial_threshold_rule: median + 5 x 1.4826 x MAD of the per-trial peak absolute baseline deflection, derived per session channels_excluded: 51 channels_retained: 669 trials_excluded: 1194 trials_retained: 26131 - id: NS-0012 geometry: ecog_grid subject: Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage, awake, under single-pulse electrical stimulation type: B status: issued scale: perturbational value: 32.26 interval: low: 18.46 high: 46.06 basis: Standard error across the 269 site-level values is 0.84, which describes only how well the mean is determined. Widened to one standard deviation, the between-site spread actually observed, because the wideners of METHOD.md section 5 that apply here - instrumentation mismatch against the whole-head benchmark setup, and the local coverage named in the subject - are systematic and are not reduced by measuring more sites. Median 29.92. state: Awake comparison_state: Propofol anesthesia n: subjects: 7 sessions: 8 trials: 2099 method_version: 0.3.1 computation: &id005 library: renzocom/PCIst version: '0' commit: ed7d85389c559cc6b65bf20c10f619dfe0acf5e6 parameter_set: human_tms_eeg_v1 departure_reason: response_window moved from [0, 300] to [15, 300] ms. Direct cortical stimulation at 8 mA saturates the amplifier for roughly 15 ms; human_tms_eeg_v1 was written for scalp TMS-EEG and does not contemplate it. The documented window is computed alongside and reported in gate/RESULT-PRIOS.md. parameters: baseline_window: - -400 - -50 response_window: - 15 - 300 k: 1.2 min_snr: 1.1 max_var: 99 embed: false n_steps: 100 resample: 725 source: &id006 dataset: PRIOS - PRopofol Intra-Operative SPES identifier: openneuro-ds004370 access: OpenNeuro ds004370 v1.0.0 license: CC0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-18' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - 'Local subdural grid coverage. Every recording is a single grid over one lobe, 37 to 61 channels after exclusions. PCIst measures the complexity of a response that spreads; an array a few centimeters across may be unable to observe long-range integration. This was the leading explanation for the weak contrast until it was tested twice on 2026-09-19 and failed both times: in the mouse deposit over the range that deposit can test (gate/RESULT-COVERAGE.md), and in this deposit itself, between patients and within patients, where 248 sites give a rank correlation of +0.009 and a permutation p of 0.926 (gate/RESULT-COVERAGE-HUMAN.md). The hypothesis is abandoned. The reading is titled by its coverage for that reason.' - The state contrast measured here is far weaker than the same pipeline's mouse contrast. Wakefulness exceeded propofol at 168 of 254 stimulation sites, 66 percent, sign test one-sided p = 1.5e-07, median paired ratio 1.21, in all seven patients. The mouse contrast measured by the same pipeline is 21 of 24 sessions at a median paired ratio of 1.89. The paired contrast is issued as NS-0015; this reading is one of its two arms and does not carry the comparison itself. - Anesthesia at induction rather than at a maintained plane. Stimulation began at least five minutes after propofol induction, at the start of surgery. - Two trials per stimulation site in the propofol condition and ten in the awake condition; matched per site under METHOD.md 2.1. The matched, unmatched and two-trial-floor computations agree within a point, so trial count does not carry the direction, but absolute values may be depressed by the low count. - A predicted ordering among the anesthetic states did not appear. Burst suppression is deeper than plain propofol and should measure lower; against wakefulness it came out at 11 of 21 sites, median ratio 1.00. The explanation offered for this - that burst and suppression periods were pooled - was tested and not supported. It stands unexplained. No burst-suppression data is in this reading. - Declared parameter departure. human_tms_eeg_v1 specifies a response window of 0 to 300 ms; 8 mA of direct cortical stimulation saturates the amplifier for roughly 15 ms, which that set was not written for. This value uses 15 to 300 ms. Under the documented window the same cells give awake 48.19 plus or minus 14.19 and propofol 40.27 plus or minus 14.09, and the same conclusion at slightly lower contrast. - Pooled across stimulation intensity, 2 to 8 mA. METHOD.md 2.1 forbids silent pooling; 82 percent of sites are at 8 mA. - The empirical human cutoff of METHOD.md 2.2 is deliberately not applied. It belongs to a different measure, a different montage and a different population. - The interval overlaps that of the paired reading. These two readings alone do not establish a difference between the states; the paired per-site comparison recorded in gate/RESULT-PRIOS.md does. - Computed from patients under pre-surgical epilepsy monitoring. Cortex under evaluation for resection is not neurologically typical cortex. - Superseded in usefulness, not in status, by NS-0015. That contrast is where the evidence for a state difference lives; this reading is an absolute value whose interval overlaps its counterpart's and which establishes no difference on its own. - External benchmark, added 2026-09-19. Comolatti et al. 2025 (entered as NS-0017 and NS-0018) publish PCIst for this same paradigm - intracranial single-pulse stimulation in human cortex - at 38 plus or minus 12 awake and 20 plus or minus 4.9 in NREM N3. This reading sits within one standard deviation of the awake value. It is the first external check any reading in this register has had. summary: Perturbational complexity measured in awake human cortex under single-pulse electrical stimulation delivered to implanted subdural grids, in seven patients under pre-surgical epilepsy monitoring, at currents from 2 to 8 milliamps. The subject names the recording geometry because a single grid covers one lobe and the measure may require greater spatial extent; the interval is widened to the observed between-site spread for that reason and because of instrumentation mismatch against the whole-head benchmark setup. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: modality: single-pulse electrical stimulation, monophasic, 1 ms, 0.2 Hz waveform: monophasic pulse_width_ms: 1.0 repetition_rate_hz: 0.2 protocol_name: SPES intensity: - 2 - 8 intensity_units: mA site: adjacent subdural electrode pairs on the implanted grid depth: cortical surface pooled_across_intensity: true rejection: &id007 channel_rule: source_flags trial_rule: amplitude trial_threshold_uv: - 297.45 - 12229.02 trial_threshold_rule: median + 5 x 1.4826 x MAD of the per-trial peak absolute baseline deflection, derived per stimulation site per state channels_excluded: 48 channels_retained: 340 trials_excluded: 111 trials_retained: 2099 matching: &id008 channel_rule: intersect_across_states trial_rule: match_per_site trial_selection: evenly_spaced channels_dropped_for_disagreement: 7 trials_excluded_matching: 537 unmatched_reported: true - id: NS-0013 geometry: ecog_grid subject: Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage, under propofol anesthesia, under single-pulse electrical stimulation type: B status: issued scale: perturbational value: 27.02 interval: low: 13.18 high: 40.87 basis: Standard error across the 254 site-level values is 0.87, which describes only how well the mean is determined. Widened to one standard deviation, the between-site spread actually observed, because the wideners of METHOD.md section 5 that apply here - instrumentation mismatch against the whole-head benchmark setup, and the local coverage named in the subject - are systematic and are not reduced by measuring more sites. Median 24.42. state: Propofol anesthesia comparison_state: Awake n: subjects: 7 sessions: 7 trials: 2099 method_version: 0.3.1 computation: *id005 source: *id006 commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - 'Local subdural grid coverage. Every recording is a single grid over one lobe, 37 to 61 channels after exclusions. PCIst measures the complexity of a response that spreads; an array a few centimeters across may be unable to observe long-range integration. This was the leading explanation for the weak contrast until it was tested twice on 2026-09-19 and failed both times: in the mouse deposit over the range that deposit can test (gate/RESULT-COVERAGE.md), and in this deposit itself, between patients and within patients, where 248 sites give a rank correlation of +0.009 and a permutation p of 0.926 (gate/RESULT-COVERAGE-HUMAN.md). The hypothesis is abandoned. The reading is titled by its coverage for that reason.' - The state contrast measured here is far weaker than the same pipeline's mouse contrast. Wakefulness exceeded propofol at 168 of 254 stimulation sites, 66 percent, sign test one-sided p = 1.5e-07, median paired ratio 1.21, in all seven patients. The mouse contrast measured by the same pipeline is 21 of 24 sessions at a median paired ratio of 1.89. The paired contrast is issued as NS-0015; this reading is one of its two arms and does not carry the comparison itself. - Anesthesia at induction rather than at a maintained plane. Stimulation began at least five minutes after propofol induction, at the start of surgery. - Two trials per stimulation site in the propofol condition and ten in the awake condition; matched per site under METHOD.md 2.1. The matched, unmatched and two-trial-floor computations agree within a point, so trial count does not carry the direction, but absolute values may be depressed by the low count. - A predicted ordering among the anesthetic states did not appear. Burst suppression is deeper than plain propofol and should measure lower; against wakefulness it came out at 11 of 21 sites, median ratio 1.00. The explanation offered for this - that burst and suppression periods were pooled - was tested and not supported. It stands unexplained. No burst-suppression data is in this reading. - Declared parameter departure. human_tms_eeg_v1 specifies a response window of 0 to 300 ms; 8 mA of direct cortical stimulation saturates the amplifier for roughly 15 ms, which that set was not written for. This value uses 15 to 300 ms. Under the documented window the same cells give awake 48.19 plus or minus 14.19 and propofol 40.27 plus or minus 14.09, and the same conclusion at slightly lower contrast. - Pooled across stimulation intensity, 2 to 8 mA. METHOD.md 2.1 forbids silent pooling; 82 percent of sites are at 8 mA. - The empirical human cutoff of METHOD.md 2.2 is deliberately not applied. It belongs to a different measure, a different montage and a different population. - The interval overlaps that of the paired reading. These two readings alone do not establish a difference between the states; the paired per-site comparison recorded in gate/RESULT-PRIOS.md does. - Computed from patients under pre-surgical epilepsy monitoring. Cortex under evaluation for resection is not neurologically typical cortex. - Superseded in usefulness, not in status, by NS-0015. That contrast is where the evidence for a state difference lives; this reading is an absolute value whose interval overlaps its counterpart's and which establishes no difference on its own. - External benchmark, added 2026-09-19. Comolatti et al. 2025 (entered as NS-0017 and NS-0018) publish PCIst for this same paradigm - intracranial single-pulse stimulation in human cortex - at 38 plus or minus 12 awake and 20 plus or minus 4.9 in NREM N3. This reading sits within one standard deviation of the awake value. It is the first external check any reading in this register has had. summary: Perturbational complexity measured in the same seven patients, on the same implanted electrodes and at the same currents, under propofol anesthesia at the start of the surgery that removed the grids. Paired against NS-0012 by stimulation site, wakefulness measured higher at 169 of 254 sites; the two intervals nevertheless overlap and these readings alone do not establish a difference between the states. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: modality: single-pulse electrical stimulation, monophasic, 1 ms, 0.2 Hz waveform: monophasic pulse_width_ms: 1.0 repetition_rate_hz: 0.2 protocol_name: SPES intensity: - 2 - 8 intensity_units: mA site: adjacent subdural electrode pairs on the implanted grid depth: cortical surface pooled_across_intensity: true rejection: *id007 matching: *id008 - id: NS-0014 subject: Reptile forebrain (Pogona vitticeps) under claustrum stimulation type: B status: planned scale: perturbational value: null interval: null state: Not yet determined comparison_state: null n: subjects: null sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.3.1 computation: null source: dataset: Wavelength-dependent sleep state manipulation in Pogona vitticeps identifier: doi:10.1038/s42003-026-10024-2 access: figure-level data public; remainder on request license: unstated commercial_use: unconfirmed retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - 'BLOCKED 2026-09-19. The Laurent-laboratory source''s electrical stimulation was performed exclusively in an isolated ex vivo forebrain; its in vivo recordings carrying sleep and waking carry no stimulation. A wider sweep the same day found that a different group has run the experiment: Albeck and Shein-Idelson, Communications Biology 2026, doi 10.1038/s42003-026-10024-2 - nine bearded dragons, 32-channel probe, optic fiber implanted on the brain, light delivered during the ongoing sleep cycle in vivo in the same recordings, with intensity measured. That is now the source this entry points at, and it is blocked on access rather than on the experiment''s existence: the deposit is figure-level and the remainder is available on request.' - The authors of the 2026 source note the effect may be mediated by residual photoreception rather than by a circuit-targeted perturbation. Whether it satisfies METHOD.md 2's requirement for an input delivered to the system is genuinely unsettled and must be resolved before any reading is issued, not after. - What the source could support instead is an ex vivo perturbational reading, of which the register holds none. That is a different subject from the one planned and must never be described as a state contrast in a behaving animal. Whether the preparation offers a defensible contrast is unsettled, because the stimulus that induces cortical slow waves there is the same stimulus that would be used to probe them. - Stimulation current is not reported in the publication, only pulse width, so METHOD.md 2.1 would not be satisfied even for the ex vivo reading without a query to the laboratory. - The in vivo probe spans roughly 750 micrometers. Local recording geometry is already the leading explanation for the weak human contrast recorded in NS-0015; this geometry is more local still. Any future in vivo reptile reading inherits that problem in a worse form, and it is known in advance rather than discovered afterward. - The electrophysiology is not deposited. The data availability statement offers it by request. - The register holds mouse and human readings only. DANDI holds no reptile electrophysiology at all, an absence verified with a control query on 2026-09-19 and recorded in docs/sourcing.md. The non-mammalian gap is real and this entry does not yet close it. - No parameter set exists for this paradigm. METHOD.md 2.1 forbids writing one before data has been run through it. summary: null issued: null supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null - id: NS-0015 subject: 'Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage: wakefulness against propofol anesthesia' type: F status: issued scale: separation value: 1.206 interval: low: 1.12 high: 1.275 basis: 'Percentile bootstrap over the pairing unit, 20,000 resamples, on the median of the paired ratios. The wideners of METHOD.md section 5 are deliberately NOT applied: species extrapolation, instrumentation mismatch and recording geometry are shared by both arms of a paired contrast and cancel in the ratio. That cancellation is why the contrast carries evidence its two arms do not, and it is also why this interval is narrow while both parent intervals are wide.' state: Awake against propofol anesthesia derived_from: - NS-0012 - NS-0013 n: subjects: 7 sessions: 8 trials: 2099 method_version: 0.3.2 computation: &id009 library: numpy version: percentile bootstrap, 20,000 resamples seed: 0 parameter_set: paired_contrast_v1 parameters: statistic: median of paired ratios resamples: 20000 interval: percentile, 2.5 to 97.5 source: dataset: PRIOS - PRopofol Intra-Operative SPES identifier: openneuro-ds004370 access: OpenNeuro ds004370 v1.0.0 license: CC0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-18' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - This is a ratio and is not on the perturbational scale. It may not be compared to NS-0012, NS-0013 or any other Type A or B value, only to another Type F contrast. - 'The contrast is far smaller than the mouse contrast NS-0016 measured by the same pipeline: 1.21 against 1.89, and 66 percent of pairs against 88 percent. The recording geometry named in both parent readings was the leading explanation until 2026-09-19, when it was tested in both deposits and failed in both. In the mouse deposit, cutting the array to 62 percent of extent and ten channels left the contrast at 2.23 against 2.44. In this deposit, across 248 stimulation sites, the rank correlation between a site''s centrality in the array and its contrast is +0.009, central and peripheral medians are 1.201 and 1.206, and a 20,000-fold permutation test gives p = 0.926. See gate/RESULT-COVERAGE.md and gate/RESULT-COVERAGE-HUMAN.md. The hypothesis is abandoned rather than merely unsupported. The now-likelier explanation is the paradigm itself: Comolatti et al. 2025 report a wake-to-NREM ratio of 1.9 for intracranial stimulation against 2.8 for TMS-EEG in the same framework, published. See NS-0017 and NS-0018.' - Two of 254 pairs were dropped from the ratio because the anesthetized value was exactly zero, meaning no component passed the minimum signal-to-noise threshold. They are counted in the sign test, where they favor the observed direction, and excluded from the ratio, where they would be undefined. - All seven patients separate in the expected direction by median paired ratio, but PRIOS03 contributes four sites and its median awake value is below its median anesthetized value; the median of its paired ratios and the ratio of its medians disagree. Nothing should be concluded from that patient either way. - Anesthesia at induction rather than at a maintained plane, and two trials per site in the anesthetized arm. See NS-0013. - A predicted ordering among the anesthetic states did not appear, and the first explanation offered for it was tested and failed. Burst suppression is deeper than plain propofol and should separate further from wakefulness; it did not. See gate/RESULT-PRIOS.md. No burst-suppression data is in this contrast. - This contrast establishes that the quantity differed between the two states in these recordings. It establishes nothing about consciousness in either state, and METHOD.md 1.2 places any such claim outside the method. summary: 'The paired separation between wakefulness and propofol anesthesia in seven epilepsy patients stimulated on the same implanted electrodes in both states. Perturbational complexity was higher awake at 168 of 254 stimulation sites, a median ratio of 1.21, in all seven patients. This is the quantity the two parent readings could not express: their intervals overlap because patients differ from one another far more than the states differ within a patient, and only the pairing removes that.' issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null separation: pairing_unit: stimulation site, keyed by patient, electrode pair and current pairs: 254 higher: 168 higher_fraction: 0.661 test: binomial sign test over pairs, one-sided p_value: 1.5e-07 pairs_dropped: 2 subjects_agreeing: 7/7 - id: NS-0016 subject: 'Mouse cortex: wakefulness against isoflurane anesthesia' type: F status: issued scale: separation value: 1.892 interval: low: 1.529 high: 2.842 basis: 'Percentile bootstrap over the pairing unit, 20,000 resamples, on the median of the paired ratios. The wideners of METHOD.md section 5 are deliberately NOT applied: species extrapolation, instrumentation mismatch and recording geometry are shared by both arms of a paired contrast and cancel in the ratio. That cancellation is why the contrast carries evidence its two arms do not, and it is also why this interval is narrow while both parent intervals are wide.' state: Awake against isoflurane anesthesia derived_from: - NS-0006 - NS-0011 n: subjects: 23 sessions: 24 trials: 19869 method_version: 0.3.2 computation: *id009 source: dataset: Allen Institute cortical stimulation identifier: dandi-000458 access: DANDI Archive, version 0.230317.0039 license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-18' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - This is a ratio and is not on the perturbational scale. It may not be compared to NS-0006, NS-0011 or any other Type A or B value, only to another Type F contrast. - Issued on 2026-09-19 against readings issued on 2026-09-18. The paired comparison it records was computed during the reproduction gate and published in gate/RESULT-3.md at that time; it could not be entered in the register because no record format existed for it until METHOD.md 0.3.2. The parent readings are unchanged and are not superseded. - Species extrapolation. The wideners that would apply to either arm alone cancel here, but the contrast is still a contrast in mouse cortex and says nothing directly about human cortex. - Pooled across stimulation intensity, 10 to 100 microamps, and across stimulation depth. METHOD.md 2.1 records a 5.4-fold variation of the underlying quantity across that current range; the contrast is taken within session, so both arms share the same intensity distribution. - Twenty of 23 animals separate in the expected direction; 21 of 24 sessions do. Three sessions run the other way and are recorded in gate/RESULT-3.md rather than excluded. - This contrast establishes that the quantity differed between the two states in these recordings. It establishes nothing about consciousness in either state, and METHOD.md 1.2 places any such claim outside the method. summary: The paired separation between wakefulness and isoflurane anesthesia in 24 recording sessions from 23 mice, measured within each session so that differences between animals cancel. Perturbational complexity was higher awake in 21 of 24 sessions, a median ratio of 1.89. This is the comparison the reproduction gate turned on, entered in the register for the first time under the contrast record format that issuing the human pair showed was missing. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null separation: pairing_unit: recording session pairs: 24 higher: 21 higher_fraction: 0.875 test: binomial sign test over pairs, one-sided p_value: 0.000139 pairs_dropped: 0 subjects_agreeing: 20/23 - id: NS-0017 subject: Human cortex, awake, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 38.0 interval: low: 26.0 high: 50.0 basis: One stated error term (12) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied, because a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it. state: Awake n: subjects: 31 sessions: 231 trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: PCIst per Comolatti et al. 2019; see the cited article for windows and resample rate source: dataset: Comolatti R, Hassan G, Mikulan E, et al. Brain Stimulation 18(5):1444-1454 (2025). doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 identifier: 10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 access: published article license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. METHOD.md 3 permits a Type D value to share the Type A scale only where the third party's method and parameters match. They do here in measure and paradigm - PCIst, intracranial single-pulse stimulation, human cortex - and differ in electrode montage, reduction to 61 channels, and stimulation current. The match is close but not exact and the value should not be treated as interchangeable with a Type A or B reading. - Error term is standard deviation, stated as such by the authors. - The same publication reports TMS-EEG wakefulness at 59 plus or minus 14 in the same framework. Intracranial stimulation gives systematically lower values in wakefulness, p = 8.9e-04, and converges with TMS in NREM. A single cutoff may not be shared across the two modalities during wakefulness, and METHOD.md 2.2 already forbids applying the human PCI* cutoff outside its own paradigm. - Source article is CC BY-NC-ND. The numeric value is a fact and is not itself licensable, but the article may not be redistributed commercially. - Patients under pre-surgical epilepsy monitoring. Not neurologically typical cortex. summary: 'Published PCIst for intracranial single-pulse electrical stimulation in awake humans, 31 epilepsy patients over 231 sessions at 5 mA. Cited rather than recomputed. This is the external benchmark the register''s own human readings lacked: NS-0012 was computed at 32.26 and sits within one standard deviation of it.' issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0018 subject: Human cortex, NREM N3 sleep, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 20.0 interval: low: 15.1 high: 24.9 basis: One stated error term (4.9) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied, because a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it. state: NREM N3 sleep n: subjects: 13 sessions: 54 trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: PCIst per Comolatti et al. 2019; see the cited article for windows and resample rate source: dataset: Comolatti R, Hassan G, Mikulan E, et al. Brain Stimulation 18(5):1444-1454 (2025). doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 identifier: 10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 access: published article license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. See NS-0017. - Error term is standard deviation. - Sleep is a different unconsciousness from anesthesia and this value may not be compared to NS-0013 or NS-0011 without saying so. - Source article is CC BY-NC-ND. - Patients under pre-surgical epilepsy monitoring. summary: Published PCIst for intracranial single-pulse electrical stimulation during NREM N3 sleep, 13 patients over 54 sessions. Paired against NS-0017 it gives a wake-to-sleep ratio of 1.9 for the intracranial paradigm, against 2.8 for TMS-EEG in the same publication. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0019 subject: Rat cortex, awake, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 42.35 interval: low: 38.88 high: 45.82 basis: One stated error term (3.47 SEM) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied, because a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it. state: Awake n: subjects: 9 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: PCIst per Comolatti et al. 2019; see the cited article for windows and resample rate source: dataset: Arena A, Comolatti R, Thon S, Casali AG, Storm JF. eNeuro 8(4) ENEURO.0343-20.2021. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0343-20.2021 identifier: 10.1523/ENEURO.0343-20.2021 access: published article license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. - Error term is the standard error of the mean, not a standard deviation, so the interval here describes how well the group mean is determined and not the spread across animals. - Species extrapolation. The human PCI* cutoff of METHOD.md 2.2 does not apply. - Sixteen epidural screws. Instrumentation differs from both the mouse and human readings in this register. - A later re-analysis of the same recordings by Nilsen, Arena and Storm (2024) publishes 42.34 for this condition, agreeing to rounding, but publishes materially different values for the same paper's sevoflurane and ketamine arms with different sample sizes. Only the propofol-cohort wake value is cited here for that reason. summary: Published PCIst in awake rats under bipolar intracranial stimulation at 50 microamps, nine animals with 16 epidural electrodes. Cited rather than recomputed. Extends the register's species coverage to a third mammal without any data access. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0020 subject: Rat cortex, propofol anesthesia, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 6.63 interval: low: 5.25 high: 8.01 basis: One stated error term (1.38 SEM) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied, because a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it. state: Propofol anesthesia n: subjects: 9 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: PCIst per Comolatti et al. 2019; see the cited article for windows and resample rate source: dataset: Arena A, Comolatti R, Thon S, Casali AG, Storm JF. eNeuro 8(4) ENEURO.0343-20.2021. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0343-20.2021 identifier: 10.1523/ENEURO.0343-20.2021 access: published article license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. - Error term is the standard error of the mean. - Species extrapolation. - The same publication reports sevoflurane and ketamine arms whose values were revised in a 2024 re-analysis by the same group. Those arms are deliberately not entered. - Maintained anesthesia at a stated infusion rate, unlike NS-0013 which was measured five minutes after induction. The comparison between this pair's separation and the human pair's is confounded by depth as well as by species. summary: Published PCIst in propofol-anesthetized rats, same nine animals and same electrodes as NS-0019. The wake-to-propofol ratio of 6.4 is the largest state separation in the register by a wide margin, and the anesthesia is a maintained plane rather than an induction. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0021 subject: Human cortex, awake, under TMS-EEG (published value) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 59.0 interval: low: 45.0 high: 73.0 basis: 'One stated error term (14 SD) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied: a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it.' state: Awake n: subjects: 22 sessions: 90 trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: see the cited article for windows, resample rate and stimulus count source: dataset: Comolatti R, Hassan G, Mikulan E, et al. Brain Stimulation 18(5):1444-1454 (2025). doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 identifier: 10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 access: published article license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. - Error term is standard deviation. - TMS-EEG and intracranial stimulation are different paradigms on the same measure and the same publication shows they do not give the same value in wakefulness (59 against 38, p = 8.9e-04). This value may not be compared to NS-0012 or NS-0017 without stating the paradigm difference. - Source article is CC BY-NC-ND. - Healthy volunteers, unlike the epilepsy cohorts elsewhere in this register. summary: Published PCIst for transcranial magnetic stimulation in awake humans, 22 subjects over 90 sessions at 64 channels. Paired with NS-0022 it gives a wake-to-sleep ratio of 2.8 for the TMS paradigm against 1.9 for intracranial stimulation in the same publication - the paradigm difference that replaced local coverage as the explanation for this register's weak human contrast. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0022 subject: Human cortex, NREM N3 sleep, under TMS-EEG (published value) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 21.0 interval: low: 13.3 high: 28.7 basis: 'One stated error term (7.7 SD) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied: a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it.' state: NREM N3 sleep n: subjects: 12 sessions: 12 trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: see the cited article for windows, resample rate and stimulus count source: dataset: Comolatti R, Hassan G, Mikulan E, et al. Brain Stimulation 18(5):1444-1454 (2025). doi:10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 identifier: 10.1016/j.brs.2025.07.016 access: published article license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. - Error term is standard deviation. - Sleep is a different unconsciousness from anesthesia. - Source article is CC BY-NC-ND. - Healthy volunteers. summary: Published PCIst for TMS-EEG during NREM N3 sleep, 12 subjects in paired sessions. Converges with the intracranial NREM value of NS-0018 (21 against 20, p = 0.68) even though the two paradigms differ sharply in wakefulness. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0023 subject: Human cortex, alert wakefulness, under TMS-EEG (published benchmark, n=108) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 47.89 interval: low: 35.24 high: 60.54 basis: 'One stated error term (12.65 SD) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied: a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it.' state: Awake n: subjects: 108 sessions: 382 trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: see the cited article for windows, resample rate and stimulus count source: dataset: Comolatti R, Casarotto S, Rosanova M, et al. Brain Stimulation 12(5):1280-1289 (2019). PMID 31133480 identifier: '31133480' access: published article license: not open access commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. - Error term is standard deviation. - The companion pooled unconscious value in the same publication is 14.19 plus or minus 5.26 across NREM sleep and anesthesia together, entered as NS-0024. - The source article is not open access. The numeric value is a fact and not itself licensable, but the article may not be redistributed. - Healthy volunteers under TMS-EEG. Not comparable to an intracranial value without stating the paradigm difference; see NS-0021 and NS-0017. summary: 'The reference distribution PCIst was introduced against: 108 healthy subjects over 382 TMS-EEG sessions in alert wakefulness. This is the largest published wakefulness sample on this measure and the benchmark every other reading in the register is implicitly compared to.' issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0024 subject: Human cortex, NREM sleep and anesthesia pooled, under TMS-EEG (published benchmark) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 14.19 interval: low: 8.93 high: 19.45 basis: 'One stated error term (5.26 SD) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied: a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it.' state: Unconscious, pooled n: subjects: 108 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: see the cited article for windows, resample rate and stimulus count source: dataset: Comolatti R, Casarotto S, Rosanova M, et al. Brain Stimulation 12(5):1280-1289 (2019). PMID 31133480 identifier: '31133480' access: published article license: not open access commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. - Error term is standard deviation. - Pools two different unconsciousnesses - NREM sleep and anesthesia - which this register elsewhere insists on separating. The pooling is the source authors', not this register's, and it is the reason this value is entered as cited rather than treated as a contrast arm. - Source article not open access. - Healthy volunteers under TMS-EEG. summary: The unconscious arm of the reference distribution, pooling NREM sleep and anesthesia across the same 108 subjects. Paired with NS-0023 it gives the benchmark separation of 3.4, the widest in the register and the one every weaker contrast here should be read against. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0025 subject: Ferret visual cortex slices, slow oscillation, under electrical stimulation (published value) type: D status: issued scale: cited value: 0.1 interval: low: 0.098 high: 0.102 basis: 'One stated error term (0.002 SEM) either side of the published mean, as published. No widener of METHOD.md section 5 is applied: a cited value is reported at the precision its authors reported it and this register does not re-derive it.' state: Slow oscillation n: subjects: 58 sessions: null trials: null method_version: 0.3.2 computation: library: not recomputed - value cited as published version: n/a parameter_set: as published by the cited authors parameters: note: see the cited article for windows, resample rate and stimulus count source: dataset: Barbero-Castillo A, Riefolo F, Entrialgo-Cadierno R, et al. Journal of Neuroscience 41(23):5029-5044 (2021). doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1837-20.2021 identifier: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1837-20.2021 access: published article license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Cited, not recomputed. - DIFFERENT SCALE. This is sPCI - a Lempel-Ziv variant normalized to source entropy, bounded near 0 to 1 - and NOT PCIst. It may never be compared to any Type A, B or F value in this register, and METHOD.md 3 assigns it the cited scale for that reason. - Error term is the standard error of the mean. - Ex vivo tissue. There is no behaving animal and no behavioral state; the contrast the source reports is between synchronized and desynchronized activity, not between consciousness and its absence. - The same publication reports the measure to be trial-count dependent - 0.092 at 15 stimuli falling to 0.084 at 100 - so the number is only meaningful alongside its stimulus count, which is 40 here. - Ferret. Species extrapolation of a kind this register has not previously attempted. summary: The register's first in vitro entry. Perturbational complexity in ferret visual cortex slices during the slow oscillation, 58 slices on a 16-channel array under infragranular electrical stimulation. Desynchronizing the tissue raises it to 0.141, which is the in vitro analogue of a state contrast. issued: date: '2026-09-19' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: null rejection: null matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0026 geometry: ecog_grid subject: Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage, awake, under single-pulse electrical stimulation (second cohort) type: B status: issued scale: perturbational value: 35.83 interval: low: 19.46 high: 52.2 basis: Standard error across the 75 cell-level values is 1.89, which describes only how well the mean is determined. Widened to one standard deviation, the between-cell spread actually observed, on the same reasoning as NS-0012 - the wideners of METHOD.md section 5 that apply here are systematic and are not reduced by measuring more cells. Median 33.48. state: Awake comparison_state: null n: subjects: 3 sessions: 4 trials: 359 method_version: 0.3.4 computation: library: renzocom/PCIst version: '0' commit: ed7d85389c559cc6b65bf20c10f619dfe0acf5e6 parameter_set: human_tms_eeg_v1 departure_reason: response_window moved from [0, 300] to [15, 300] ms, identically to NS-0012. Direct cortical stimulation at 8 mA saturates the amplifier for roughly 15 ms; human_tms_eeg_v1 was written for scalp TMS-EEG and does not contemplate it. The documented window is computed alongside and reported in gate/RESULT-STREEF.md, where it runs about 16 points higher because the saturation it contains is itself complex signal. parameters: baseline_window: - -400 - -50 response_window: - 15 - 300 k: 1.2 min_snr: 1.1 max_var: 99 embed: false n_steps: 100 resample: 725 source: dataset: STReEF - Single pulse electrical stimulation To Elicit Epileptiform activity in Focal epilepsy identifier: openneuro-ds005448 access: OpenNeuro ds005448 license: CC0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-19' verified: true commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - Issued to test NS-0012, not to extend it. NS-0012 gives 32.26 from seven patients at one center, and nothing in the register tested whether that is a property of the method or of that cohort. This reading is the identical pipeline on three patients at a different center, with geometry, stimulation protocol, current and trial count all held to NS-0012's values. It falls inside NS-0012's interval of 18.46 to 46.06. See gate/RESULT-STREEF.md. - 'Three patients, not thirteen. ds005448 holds thirteen, but it is a mixed-geometry deposit: five record from subdural grids and eight from depth electrodes, which METHOD.md 3.3 does not permit pooling. Of the five grid patients, one contributes no usable cells and one went down the contrast path, leaving three. The depth-electrode cohort is computed separately and is not in this value.' - A single current, 8 mA. Every cell here is at 8 mA, while NS-0012 pools 2, 4 and 8 mA. The like-for-like comparison is therefore against NS-0012's 8 mA subset, which is 31.14, not against its headline. Both are reported in gate/RESULT-STREEF.md. Nothing here bears on the rest of the intensity range. - Cells are sampled, not exhausted. 96 to 176 cells were eligible per patient; 25 evenly spaced cells were computed for each, giving 75. The sampling is deterministic and stated in gate/prios.py, but this is not every cell the deposit could yield. - Computed at the two-trial floor, to match NS-0012. NS-0012 is matched down to the two trials its propofol arm carries, so this reading is computed the same way even though its own recordings carry more. At all available trials the same 75 cells give 37.32. There is no matched variant, because this deposit carries one state and there is nothing to match against. - Single state, so this reading carries no contrast and no Type F partner. ds005448 does hold 924 stimulation trials during annotated sleep, but the protocol walks sites sequentially, so a patient who falls asleep partway through is stimulated at different sites in each state. State and site are confounded and no paired contrast can be built from it. - It measures about 20 percent above NS-0012 at matched current and trial count, and that difference is not established. Three patients against seven cannot reject equality - the smallest attainable p is 0.017 and the test returns 0.52. The between-patient spread inside PRIOS alone runs 21.49 to 54.16, wider than the gap between the two cohort centers. summary: The register's first external check on an absolute value. An independent cohort at a different center, computed by the identical pipeline at matched geometry, stimulation protocol, current and trial count, returns 35.83 against NS-0012's 32.26 - inside its issued interval. issued: date: '2026-09-20' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. supersedes: null superseded_by: null indicator_profile: null stimulation: modality: single-pulse electrical stimulation, monophasic, 1 ms, 0.2 Hz waveform: monophasic pulse_width_ms: 1.0 repetition_rate_hz: 0.2 protocol_name: SPESclin intensity: 8 intensity_units: mA site: adjacent subdural electrode pairs on the implanted grid depth: cortical surface pooled_across_intensity: false rejection: channel_rule: source_flags trial_rule: amplitude trial_threshold_uv: - 550.25 - 10575.37 trial_threshold_rule: median + 5 x 1.4826 x MAD of the per-trial peak absolute baseline deflection, derived per stimulation site per state; the range above spans the three patients channels_excluded: 0 channels_retained: 233 trials_excluded: 50 trials_retained: 359 matching: null derived_from: null separation: null - id: NS-0027 type: B status: issued scale: perturbational geometry: epidural_array modality_tier: M1 subject: Mouse cortex, epidural surface array, recovery from isoflurane anesthesia, under single-pulse electrical stimulation state: Recovery from isoflurane anesthesia comparison_state: null value: 61.35 interval: low: 0.0 high: 199.42 base: between_unit_sd factors: - widener: small_n factor: 1.25 basis: provisional - widener: species_extrapolation factor: 1.5 basis: provisional - widener: instrumentation_mismatch factor: 1.5 basis: measured basis: 'Base is +/- 1 standard deviation of the between-subject spread actually observed, 49.09 over 4 subjects, per INSTRUCTION.md 5.1 — never the standard error, which would narrow as subjects accumulate while the section 5 wideners do not. Three wideners apply and multiply to 2.8125: small n, species extrapolation, and instrumentation mismatch against the human benchmark setup. Two of the three are provisional and are marked so. Observed subject values ranged 14.24 to 105.99.' wideners: - small_n - species_extrapolation - instrumentation_mismatch n: subjects: 4 sessions: 4 trials: 1153 grain: layout: non_uniform pitch_mm: 1.083 pitch_measured_mm: 1.091 channels: 21 basis: computed_from_coordinates basis_source: NeuroNexus Surface Arrays catalog p.004, design EEG-mouse-30-A; per-site coordinates relative to bregma, 15 sites per hemisphere mirrored about the midline. The manufacturer states no pitch and the array is anatomically placed, so the figure is the median nearest-neighbour distance over that table (METHOD 3.5, 0.4.3). Cross-checked against Kaffashi/Binder et al. 2018 Front. Integr. Neurosci. 12:53, which states a minimum inter-electrode distance of 1.0 mm and a maximum of 8.5 mm. method_version: 0.4.3 instruction_version: 1.5.0 computation: library: renzocom/PCIst version: '0' commit: ed7d85389c559cc6b65bf20c10f619dfe0acf5e6 spec_version: PCIST-1.0 parameter_set: mouse_spes_v1 parameters: k: 1.2 min_snr: 1.1 max_var: 99 embed: false n_steps: 100 baseline_window: - -800 - -2 response_window: - 2 - 800 resample: 500 stimulation: modality: single-pulse electrical stimulation, biphasic waveform: biphasic pulse_width_ms: 0.6 repetition_rate_hz: 0.25 intensity: - 10 - 100 intensity_units: uA site: MOs (secondary motor cortex) depth: deep and superficial, pooled pooled_across_intensity: true matched_null: sham_median: 9.217255637203865 sham_p95: 37.07841915662128 n_draws: 10 clearance: 3.020524223374652 per_subject: - subject: sub-521886 real: 105.98893044376535 sham_median: 19.183475767288776 sham_p95: 44.39876662222677 n_draws: 10 clearance: 5.525011824212547 - subject: sub-521887 real: 101.41550661328579 sham_median: 10.5700246100194 sham_p95: 29.758071691015793 n_draws: 10 clearance: 9.594632969648275 - subject: sub-543393 real: 14.243822273407478 sham_median: 3.8853151411039795 sham_p95: 19.434681674337334 n_draws: 10 clearance: 3.6660661377805805 - subject: sub-543394 real: 23.754872474191863 sham_median: 7.864486664388329 sham_p95: 53.19353453295452 n_draws: 10 clearance: 3.020524223374652 rule: 'Matched sham: same channels, same trial count, same parameter set and same averaging, with epoch onsets drawn at random from each session at least one second clear of any real stimulation (gate/shamreal.py). The clearance reported is the WORST of the four subjects, not the median, because a floor is a floor.' rejection: channel_rule: source_flags trial_rule: amplitude trial_threshold_rule: median + 5 x 1.4826 x MAD of the per-trial peak absolute baseline deflection, derived per session channels_excluded: 34 channels_retained: 86 trials_excluded: 40 trials_retained: 1153 trial_threshold_uv: - 1039.2 - 1351.5 rating: mode: dual_implementation_same_author rater_a: rater_id: renzocom/PCIst@ed7d853 value: 61.35 type: B modality_tier: M1 rater_b: rater_id: nooscope.pcist_b@PCIST-1.0 value: 61.35 type: B modality_tier: M1 agreed_pre_adjudication: true adjudicator: null adjudication_note: 'The two implementations agree at ICC(2,1) = 1.0000 over 16 cells, worst relative difference 0.00e+00, so there was nothing to adjudicate. THIS MODE IS NOT CONFORMANT under METHOD.md 9.3.1 and 12.9: implementation B was written from spec/PCIST-1.0.md, and that annex was written from implementation A, so the pair shares an author and therefore shares its assumptions. Agreement here establishes that the specification is sufficient to reimplement the computation. It does not establish independence and is not reported as interrater agreement.' commissioned_by: null fee: null caveats: - 'Every subject clears its own matched floor, by 3.02x to 9.59x. The dispersion below is therefore signal rather than instrument: it is not the case that the low animals are sitting on the floor. For comparison the anesthetized arm of this same deposit has a median clearance of 1.90x and a minimum below 1 (gate/RESULT-FLOOR.md).' - THE INTERVAL IS WIDER THAN THE VALUE, and the rule that makes it so is worth questioning. The base is the observed between-subject spread, which for four animals of one strain on one rig ALREADY contains whatever instrumentation and biological variation they differ by. INSTRUCTION.md 5 then multiplies it by species and instrumentation wideners, which are allowances for carrying a value OUTWARD to another species or rig. Applying them inside the interval conflates how much this quantity varies here with how far it may be carried elsewhere, and it double-counts. The rule is applied as written and the concern is recorded rather than quietly resolved; NS-0011 has the same structure. - THE STATE DOES NOT BEHAVE. Across the four subjects carrying it, recovery reads between 0.19x and 2.05x of the same animal's awake value — a spread of 10.9x — while awake against isoflurane separates cleanly in every animal. Two animals read above their own awake value and two well below. This reading's central value is therefore a mean over a state that is not internally consistent, and it should be read as establishing the spread rather than the level. - Stimulation timing is DERIVED, not stated. The deposit does not state a repetition rate; 0.25 Hz is the reciprocal of the median inter-stimulus interval of 3.9954 s measured from the trials table. The 0.6 ms pulse width is the annotated event duration, and the deposit does not state how a biphasic pulse divides between its phases, so a per-phase figure would be a guess and is not given. METHOD 2.1 requires both fields; recording the measured values with their provenance is better than null and better than a guess, and the ambiguity is stated rather than resolved. - NOT CONFORMANT, on condition 9 alone. Every other condition of METHOD.md 12 is satisfied. The rating mode is dual_implementation_same_author, which 9.3.1 does not accept, and no available second party is independent of the specification. A third party running spec/PCIST-1.0.md against spec/vectors/VECTORS-1.0.json is what closes it. - Species extrapolation. The cortical geometry the method's spatial assumptions rest on is not shared with human cortex. - Recording grain is derived, not manufactured. The array is anatomically placed and has no pitch; the declared figure is the median nearest-neighbour distance over the manufacturer's own published coordinate table, per METHOD.md 3.5 as amended in 0.4.3. - The deposit states no coordinate units. They are established here as Allen CCF voxels at 25 um by agreement with the manufacturer's coordinate table — median nearest-neighbour 1.076 mm against 1.083 mm — and confirmed against a paper-stated maximum inter-electrode distance of 8.5 mm. The two neighbouring scales are wrong by a factor of 2.5 either way. - Pooled across stimulation intensity, 10 to 100 microamps, and across stimulation depth. METHOD.md 2.1 forbids comparing readings taken at different intensities as absolute values, and this reading pools them; the range pooled is stated. source: dataset: Allen Institute mouse cortico-thalamo-cortical electrical stimulation identifier: dandi-000458 access: DANDI:000458, version 0.230317.0039 license: CC BY 4.0 commercial_use: permitted retrieved: '2026-09-17' verified: true issued: date: '2026-09-22' by: Mind Matter Analytics Inc. summary: 'Mouse cortex measured on an implanted surface array during recovery from isoflurane anesthesia. Four animals were measured and they do not agree: two recovered to above their own awake value and two to well below it, a spread of 10.9 times. Every animal''s value clears the floor measured on its own recording, so the disagreement is real rather than instrument noise. The number given is the average of four animals that differ this much, and the interval is wider than the number. This reading establishes that recovery is not one state; it does not establish a level for it.'