Register

Rendered from readings.yaml, method 0.4.10; conformance evaluated against the current methodDownload the register
17readings issued
10planned
0conformant
12conformance conditions

Every reading is published with the conditions it fails. Conformance is judged against the method as it stands today, so a reading issued before a condition existed fails it; the reading itself is never recomputed or backdated. The count of conformant readings is published at zero because that is the only way its rise will mean anything.

Readings on different scales are not comparable with one another. Open a row for its state, source, interval and caveats.

Where the issued readings fall short

Readings

IDSubjectScaleValueStatusConformance
NS-0001
Awake human cortex
State. Awake, eyes open, at restSource. OpenNeuro ds008037Method. 0.1.0· 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.
perturbational—planned
NS-0002
Human, REM sleep
State. REM, scored by polysomnographySource. OSFMethod. 0.1.0· 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.
spontaneous_proxy—planned
NS-0003
Human, NREM deep sleep
State. N3, scored by polysomnographySource. OSFMethod. 0.1.0· No perturbation delivered. Proxy substitution.· UNBLOCKED 2026-09-17. CC0 1.0, resolved via the OSF API.
spontaneous_proxy—planned
NS-0004
Human under propofol sedation
State. Graded sedation, four levelsSource. University of Cambridge repositoryMethod. 0.1.0· No perturbation delivered. Proxy substitution.· Four sedation levels give an internal gradient, which is the strongest feature of this reading.
spontaneous_proxy—planned
NS-0005
Comatose patient following cardiac arrest
State. Comatose, continuous EEG monitoringSource. Figshare 23552964Method. 0.1.0· 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.
spontaneous_proxy—planned
NS-0006
Mouse cortex, awake, under single-pulse electrical stimulation
State. AwakeSource. DANDI Archive, version 0.230317.0039Interval. [17.08, 76.33]Method. 0.3.0Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 5. no recording geometryFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
perturbational46.7issuedfails 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0007
Domestic pig
State. Graded sedation levels 1-5, with an ischemia and recovery armSource. OpenNeuro ds003380Method. 0.1.0· 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.
spontaneous_proxy—planned
NS-0008
Octopus
State. To be determined by protocolSource. Dryad doi:10.5061/dryad.c2fqz61f2Method. 0.1.0· 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.
perturbational—planned
NS-0009
Human cortical organoid
State. On multi-electrode array, stimulatedSource. DANDI:001336Method. 0.1.0· 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.
perturbational—planned
NS-0010
Frontier language model
State. Public API, default configuration, version pinned at assessmentSource. Public APIMethod. 0.1.0· 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.
indicator_profile—planned
NS-0011
Mouse cortex, isoflurane anesthesia, under single-pulse electrical stimulation
State. Isoflurane anesthesiaSource. DANDI Archive, version 0.230317.0039Interval. [6.87, 40.02]Method. 0.3.0Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 5. no recording geometryFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
perturbational23.45issuedfails 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0012
Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage, awake, under single-pulse electrical stimulation
State. AwakeSource. OpenNeuro ds004370 v1.0.0Interval. [18.46, 46.06]Method. 0.3.1Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
perturbational32.26issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0013
Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage, under propofol anesthesia, under single-pulse electrical stimulation
State. Propofol anesthesiaSource. OpenNeuro ds004370 v1.0.0Interval. [13.18, 40.87]Method. 0.3.1Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
perturbational27.02issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0014
Reptile forebrain (Pogona vitticeps) under claustrum stimulation
State. Not yet determinedSource. figure-level data public; remainder on requestMethod. 0.3.1· 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.
perturbational—planned
NS-0015
Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage: wakefulness against propofol anesthesia
State. Awake against propofol anesthesiaSource. OpenNeuro ds004370 v1.0.0Interval. [1.12, 1.275]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
separation1.206issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0016
Mouse cortex: wakefulness against isoflurane anesthesia
State. Awake against isoflurane anesthesiaSource. DANDI Archive, version 0.230317.0039Interval. [1.529, 2.842]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
separation1.892issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0017
Human cortex, awake, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value)
State. AwakeSource. published articleInterval. [26.0, 50.0]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited38issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0018
Human cortex, NREM N3 sleep, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value)
State. NREM N3 sleepSource. published articleInterval. [15.1, 24.9]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited20issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0019
Rat cortex, awake, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value)
State. AwakeSource. published articleInterval. [38.88, 45.82]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited42.35issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0020
Rat cortex, propofol anesthesia, under intracranial electrical stimulation (published value)
State. Propofol anesthesiaSource. published articleInterval. [5.25, 8.01]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited6.63issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0021
Human cortex, awake, under TMS-EEG (published value)
State. AwakeSource. published articleInterval. [45.0, 73.0]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited59issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0022
Human cortex, NREM N3 sleep, under TMS-EEG (published value)
State. NREM N3 sleepSource. published articleInterval. [13.3, 28.7]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· Cited, not recomputed.· Error term is standard deviation.· Sleep is a different unconsciousness from anesthesia.· Source article is CC BY-NC-ND.· Healthy volunteers.
cited21issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0023
Human cortex, alert wakefulness, under TMS-EEG (published benchmark, n=108)
State. AwakeSource. published articleInterval. [35.24, 60.54]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited47.89issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0024
Human cortex, NREM sleep and anesthesia pooled, under TMS-EEG (published benchmark)
State. Unconscious, pooledSource. published articleInterval. [8.93, 19.45]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited14.19issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0025
Ferret visual cortex slices, slow oscillation, under electrical stimulation (published value)
State. Slow oscillationSource. published articleInterval. [0.098, 0.102]Method. 0.3.2Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
cited0.1issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0026
Human cortex, local subdural grid coverage, awake, under single-pulse electrical stimulation (second cohort)
State. AwakeSource. OpenNeuro ds005448Interval. [19.46, 52.2]Method. 0.3.4Fails condition 3. no measurement modality tierFails condition 7. interval base is not the between-unit SDFails condition 9. rating mode is 'absent'Fails condition 10. method_version or instruction_version absentFails condition 11. recording grain is not declared (METHOD 3.5)Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
perturbational35.83issuedfails 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12
NS-0027
Mouse cortex, epidural surface array, recovery from isoflurane anesthesia, under single-pulse electrical stimulation
State. Recovery from isoflurane anesthesiaSource. DANDI:000458, version 0.230317.0039Interval. [0.0, 199.42]Method. 0.4.3Fails condition 9. rating mode is 'dual_implementation_same_author'Fails condition 12. temporal grain is not declared (METHOD 3.6)· 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.
perturbational61.35issuedfails 9, 12