{ "dataset": { "archive": "dandi", "id": "000959", "label": "DANDI:000959" }, "page": "datasets/dandi/000959/", "generated": "2026-11-05T07:41:23+00:00", "caution": "A failure to reproduce is not a finding that the paper is wrong. It may be a failure of the attempt.", "outcome_counts": { "reproduced": 23, "partially_reproduced": 5, "not_reproduced": 2, "blocked": 6 }, "outcome_counts_with_outside_data": { "reproduced": 0, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "outcome_counts_elsewhere": { "reproduced": 0, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "outcome_counts_links": { "reproduced": 0, "partially_reproduced": 0, "not_reproduced": 0, "blocked": 0 }, "attempts": [ { "id": "000959-fan-2024-01", "dataset": { "archive": "dandi", "id": "000959", "version": "0.261020.0242", "doi": "10.48324/dandi.000959/0.261020.0242" }, "key": "dandi:000959", "label": "DANDI:000959", "dataset_version": "0.261020.0242", "paper": "10.1016/j.neuron.2024.05.004", "paper_title": "Closed-loop microstimulations of the orbitofrontal cortex during real-life gaze interaction enhance dynamic social attention", "date": "2026-10-31", "kind": "agent", "accountable": "CatalystNeuro", "agent": { "harness": "Claude Code", "model": "claude-opus-5-5", "protocol": "pilot-13" }, "runner": { "platform": "GitHub Actions", "url": "https://github.com/catalystneuro/encore/actions/runs/41252133262" }, "tier": "runs", "deprecated": "", "deprecated_on": null, "entry": "000959-fan-2024", "entry_title": "Closed-loop OFC microstimulation and dynamic social attention (Fan et al. 2024)", "description": "Tests the findings of Fan, Dal Monte, Nair, Fagan and Chang (2024) on dandiset 000959, which holds the gaze, pupil, fixation events and stimulation times of every run of the 81 Eyes and 15 Mouth stimulation days of two stimulated monkeys. It compares social gaze distance, its hemifield split, inter-looking interval, reciprocation latency, the partner's gaze, fixation counts and durations, pupil size and the trial counts between microstimulation and sham trials, and detects saccades with a port of the Otero-Millan et al. (2014) detector to test their counts and kinematics. The causal decomposition is not run; its cost is timed.", "notebooks": [ { "path": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "title": "Reproducing Fan et al. (2024) from dandiset 000959", "executed": "notebooks/000959-fan-2024/reproduce_fan_2024.html" } ], "outcomes": [ { "claim": "design-days-per-area", "statement": "Eyes stimulation was applied on 27 days per stimulated area (OFC, dmPFC and ACCg), 15 per area from monkey L and 12 per area from monkey T, and Mouth stimulation on 5 days per area from monkey T.", "source": "STAR Methods, Closed-loop microstimulation protocol, paragraph 1; Figure 1B legend", "quote": "In our main experiments (Eyes stimulation; n = 15 per area from monkey L and n = 12 per area from monkey T)", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Days holding kept stimulation and sham trials are 15 per area for monkey L, 12 per area for monkey T (Eyes) and 5 per area for monkey T (Mouth). Each day holds one region.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "design-sessions-per-day", "statement": "Each day held on average 10 live social gaze sessions (9 to 11) and 5 non-social control sessions (4 to 8) for monkey L, and 15 social (14 to 15) and 5 control sessions for monkey T, each 300 s long.", "source": "STAR Methods, Experimental setup, paragraph 2", "quote": "Each data collection day consisted of a total of alternating 10 live social gaze sessions and 5 non-social control sessions on average for monkey L (9-11 social and 4-8 control sessions across all days) and alternating 15 live social gaze sessions and 5 non-social control sessions on average for monkey T (14-15 social and 5 control sessions across all days). Each session lasted 300 sec.", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Monkey L has 10.0 social runs per day (9 to 11) and 6.02 control runs (4 to 8); monkey T has 14 social runs on every one of its 36 Eyes days and 5 control runs. Runs hold 295.8 to 297.3 s of valid samples (mean 296.4). All ranges hold, and three of four means; monkey L's control mean of 6.02 is outside 5 plus or minus 0.5, as 14 of its 45 days have 8 control runs. Monkey T's mean of 14 is within the tolerance of 15 but no Eyes day has 15 social runs (the Mouth days have 15).", "deviations": [ "A session of the paper is taken to be one file (one run); the valid run length is the span of non-NaN samples of `t`." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig1e-stim-counts-comparable", "statement": "In the live social gaze condition, the total numbers of microstimulations and of shams per day were comparable across the three stimulated areas and between the two monkeys.", "source": "Results, opening section, paragraph 2; Figure 1E legend", "quote": "The total number of microstimulations (and shams) received per day was comparable across the three stimulated regions and comparable between the two animals both in the social gaze and non-social control conditions (Fig. 1E, live social gaze condition, all p > 0.90", "statistics": [ { "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.9, "p_relation": ">", "corrected": "FDR", "n": "15 days per area for monkey L and 12 for monkey T" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Over the 12 rank-sum tests for stimulations and the 12 for shams, the smallest FDR-corrected p is 0.908 and 0.942, so all exceed 0.90 as reported (smallest uncorrected 0.509 and 0.187). Kept trials per day average 116 to 125 per type and area.", "deviations": [ "Benjamini-Hochberg correction from statsmodels in place of dsp3.fdr, which the claims file names; both implement the same procedure." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs1d-stim-counts-nonsocial", "statement": "In the non-social control condition the numbers of microstimulations and shams per day were also comparable across areas and between monkeys.", "source": "Results, opening section, paragraph 2; Figure S1D legend", "quote": "Fig. S1D, non-social control condition, all p > 0.10", "statistics": [ { "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.1, "p_relation": ">", "corrected": "FDR" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "No FDR-corrected p is below 0.05 (smallest 0.108 for stimulations, 0.082 for shams). The paper's \"all p > 0.10\" does not hold for two sham tests between the monkeys (OFC and dmPFC, corrected 0.082, uncorrected 0.014 and 0.010); monkey T has more control trials per day (71 to 77) than monkey L (52 to 57).", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs1e-eyes-more-than-face", "statement": "The stimulated monkeys made significantly more fixations per day on the partner's Eyes than on the non-eye Face, for days of all three stimulated areas.", "source": "Results, opening section, paragraph 2; Figure S1E", "quote": "The total number of fixations on partner's Eyes per day was significantly higher than fixations on non-eye Face for all three stimulated brain regions (Fig. S1E, top, all p < 10\u22124, Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided, FDR-corrected)", "statistics": [ { "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.0001, "p_relation": "<", "corrected": "FDR", "n": "27 days per area" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Under both day counts (a, total; b, mean per run) and both event sets (M1-only and mutual, M1-only), Eyes fixations exceed non-eye Face fixations for every area, corrected p from 1.1e-07 to 3.1e-05, all below 1e-4. Median day totals are 382 to 408 Eyes and 134 to 179 non-eye Face fixations.", "deviations": [ "The events counted are not fixed by the claims file. M1's fixations in the ROI including the M1 side of mutual events are the main set, following the Methods' \"total number of gaze fixations ... of the stimulated monkey\" (STAR Methods, Frequency of microstimulations and regions of interest); M1-only events are shown and give the same outcome.", "The non-eye Face is the files' m1_neface table, which includes the Mouth, with mutual_face and mutual_mouth for mutual events (mutual_face is the face outside the Eyes and the Mouth; the notebook shows that m1_wholeface equals m1_eye plus m1_neface and that mutual_wholeface equals mutual_eye plus mutual_face plus mutual_mouth)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs1e-eyes-vs-rdm-comparable", "statement": "The number of fixations on the partner's Eyes per day was comparable to the number of fixations on the RDM stimulus, for days of all three areas.", "source": "Results, opening section, paragraph 2; Figure S1E", "quote": "the total number of fixations on partner's Eyes per day was comparable to fixations on the RDM stimulus for days involving the three stimulated regions (Fig. S1E, top, all p > 0.30)", "statistics": [ { "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.3, "p_relation": ">", "corrected": "FDR" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Under reading (a), the day's total, which the criterion judges, Eyes fixations exceed RDM fixations for every area (corrected p 0.00036, 0.000025 and 0.00041 for OFC, dmPFC and ACCg; median differences 177, 202 and 241 per day). A day holds about twice as many social runs as control runs (L 10 and 6, T 14 and 5), so day totals differ. Under the code's reading (b), the mean per run, the counts are comparable (corrected p 0.40, 0.40 and 0.52), as the paper reports; M1-only events give the same pattern under both readings. Whether the claims file's deciding reading (a) misreads the paper, given about twice as many social runs as control runs per day, is asked of a reader in questions/000959.yaml; the outcome is judged on the claims file as it stands.", "deviations": [ "The RDM fixations are the M1 events labelled Eyes in the Dot runs, whose Eyes ROI is the RDM location (\"same location and size as Eyes ROI\", STAR Methods, Closed-loop microstimulation protocol)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2a-density-map-ofc", "statement": "After OFC microstimulations, compared with shams, the stimulated monkey's fixations in the 1.5 s post-gaze epoch were more clustered around the partner monkey.", "source": "Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 2; Figure 2A", "quote": "Specifically, microstimulations of OFC led to more clustered subsequent gaze fixations around the partner monkey (Fig. 2A", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "The day-averaged OFC stimulation minus sham density summed over the whole Face squares is 7.47 (z-scored) and 0.0093 (by total), and over the Eyes squares 3.71 and 0.0046; it is positive in each monkey under each normalisation. dmPFC (whole Face -2.56 and -0.0027) and ACCg (-2.55 and -0.0048) are negative. 10,771 of 53,542 post-gaze fixations fall outside the 40-degree grid.", "deviations": [ "Fixations are the Methods reading (M1-only and mutual events). The grid is centred on each run's Eyes ROI centre, and the ROI squares are those whose centres lie in the ROI rectangle, relative to the Eyes centre, of every social run of the day, a standard choice; the three recalibrated days, which have two ROI sets, are dmPFC and ACCg days. Pixels are converted with 27 cm at 50 cm over 768 pixels (claims file, opening comment)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2c-ofc-social-gaze-distance", "statement": "OFC microstimulations decreased the social gaze distance, the mean distance of the stimulated monkey's fixations in the post-gaze epoch from the centre of the partner's Eyes, compared with shams; the effect held in each monkey.", "source": "Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 3; Figure 2C legend", "quote": "microstimulations of OFC significantly decreased the average distance of one's own gaze positions in space relative to partner's Eyes during the post-gaze epoch, compared to shams (Fig. 2C, p < 0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC, both monkeys combined", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<", "n": "27 OFC days" }, { "about": "OFC, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.008, "n": "15 OFC days" }, { "about": "OFC, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.002, "n": "12 OFC days" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Methods reading, median stimulation minus sham day difference -17.9 pixels (-0.70 degrees), p = 0.00021 over 27 days; monkey L p = 0.0067 (paper 0.008), monkey T p = 0.016 (paper 0.002), both negative. Code reading, p = 0.00013, 0.0067 and 0.0034. 1,270 of 19,474 social trials have no fixation in the window and are left out of the day means.", "deviations": [ "The mutual events added in the Methods reading are the M1 side of mutual_wholeface, which holds every mutual event (mutual_eye, mutual_face and mutual_mouth are subsets of it, shown in the notebook); mutual events are defined only within the face, and m1_all holds no M1 side of a mutual event.", "Each run's own ROIs are used, since three days were recalibrated between runs (08142019, 12102019, 12132019)." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2c-dmpfc-accg-no-distance-effect", "statement": "Microstimulations of dmPFC or ACCg did not change social gaze distance.", "source": "Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 3; Figure 2C", "quote": "By contrast, we did not observe such stimulation effect on social gaze distance for dmPFC (Fig. 2C, p = 0.361) or ACCg (Fig. 2C, p = 0.374)", "statistics": [ { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.361, "n": "27 dmPFC days" }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.374, "n": "27 ACCg days" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "dmPFC median day difference -6.5 pixels, p = 0.21; ACCg -4.9 pixels, p = 0.39 (paper 0.361 and 0.374). The code reading gives 0.29 and 0.29.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2e-ofc-contralateral", "statement": "The OFC effect on social gaze distance was stronger for fixations in the hemifield contralateral to the stimulated hemisphere; it was significant for contralateral fixations, not for ipsilateral ones, and the contralateral effect exceeded the ipsilateral one.", "source": "Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 3; Figure 2E legend", "quote": "Notably, the observed stimulation effect of OFC was more pronounced for gaze fixations in the contralateral visual field of the stimulated brain hemisphere (Fig. 2D\u2013E; contralateral: p < 0.001; significant statistics for individual animals are reported in the figure legend; ipsilateral: p = 0.068; contralateral vs. ipsilateral: p = 0.026, Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided)", "statistics": [ { "about": "contralateral, stimulation against sham, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.001, "p_relation": "<", "n": "27 OFC days" }, { "about": "contralateral, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.015 }, { "about": "contralateral, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.012 }, { "about": "ipsilateral, stimulation against sham, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.068 }, { "about": "contralateral against ipsilateral effect, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.026 }, { "about": "contralateral against ipsilateral effect, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.073 }, { "about": "contralateral against ipsilateral effect, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.204 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Contralateral median effect -21.2 pixels, p = 0.00048; ipsilateral -12.3 pixels, p = 0.058; contralateral against ipsilateral median -17.7 pixels, p = 0.046 (paper below 0.001, 0.068, 0.026). Per monkey, contralateral p = 0.018 (L) and 0.012 (T) (paper 0.015, 0.012); hemifield difference p = 0.073 (L) and 0.30 (T) (paper 0.073, 0.204). The code reading gives 0.00038, 0.055 and 0.026. All 27 days have fixations in both hemifields.", "deviations": [ "The hemifield is computed from the centre of `roi_m2_face` as the claims file says; the files' own laterality_label agrees for 99.98% of M1 events." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2e-dmpfc-accg-no-hemifield-effect", "statement": "For dmPFC and ACCg there was no stimulation effect on social gaze distance in either hemifield, and no difference between hemifields.", "source": "Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 3; Figure 2E", "quote": "Again, no such effect was observed in either hemifield for dmPFC (Fig. 2E, contralateral: p = 0.501; ipsilateral: p = 0.149; contralateral vs. ipsilateral: p = 0.230) or ACCg (Fig. 2E, p = 0.442; p = 0.517; p = 0.564)", "statistics": [ { "about": "dmPFC contralateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.501 }, { "about": "dmPFC ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.149 }, { "about": "dmPFC contralateral against ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.23 }, { "about": "ACCg contralateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.442 }, { "about": "ACCg ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.517 }, { "about": "ACCg contralateral against ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.564 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "dmPFC contralateral p = 0.48, ipsilateral 0.10, difference 0.22; ACCg 0.53, 0.53, 0.82 (paper 0.501, 0.149, 0.230 and 0.442, 0.517, 0.564). The code reading gives no p below 0.05 either (smallest 0.11).", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2f-nonsocial-no-distance-effect", "statement": "In the non-social control condition, microstimulations of none of the three areas changed the distance of fixations from the centre of the RDM stimulus.", "source": "Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 4; Figure 2F", "quote": "Crucially, these stimulation effects of OFC were exclusively observed in the live social gaze condition ... and not in the non-social gaze control condition using the RDM stimulus with no behavioral meaning to monkeys (Fig. 2F, OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.118 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.719 }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.302 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "OFC median day difference -13.4 pixels, p = 0.22; dmPFC 1.7 pixels, p = 0.64; ACCg -5.7 pixels, p = 0.50 (paper 0.118, 0.719, 0.302). By monkey, dmPFC in monkey L gives p = 0.048 (distance larger after stimulation), outside the claim's test.", "deviations": [ "The RDM centre is the centre of each Dot run's `roi_m1_eyes`; the Dot runs hold M1 events only, so the fixations are m1_all." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig2gh-nonsocial-no-hemifield-effect", "statement": "In the non-social control condition there was no stimulation effect in either hemifield, and no hemifield difference, for any area.", "source": "Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 4; Figure 2G-H", "quote": "The absence of stimulation effect for the RDM stimulus was also found when gaze fixation locations were split by hemifield for OFC (Fig. 2G\u2013H; contralateral: p = 0.097; ipsilateral: p = 0.249; contralateral vs. ipsilateral: p = 0.442), dmPFC (p = 0.374; p = 0.517; p = 0.773) or ACCg (p = 0.532; p = 0.943; p = 0.171)", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC contralateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.097 }, { "about": "OFC ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.249 }, { "about": "OFC contralateral against ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.442 }, { "about": "dmPFC contralateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.374 }, { "about": "dmPFC ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.517 }, { "about": "dmPFC contralateral against ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.773 }, { "about": "ACCg contralateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.532 }, { "about": "ACCg ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.943 }, { "about": "ACCg contralateral against ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.171 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "None of the nine tests over both monkeys gives p below 0.05; the smallest is OFC contralateral, 0.16 (paper 0.097). By monkey, dmPFC contralateral in monkey L gives p = 0.035, outside the claim's tests.", "deviations": [ "The Dot runs do not hold `roi_m2_face`; the hemifield reference is taken from the same day's social runs, where it never varies within a day." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "methods-ofc-distance-longer-windows", "statement": "The OFC decrease of social gaze distance also held within 2 s and within 3 s after the trial for both monkeys combined and for monkey L, not for monkey T.", "source": "STAR Methods, Gaze distance analyses, paragraph 1", "quote": "In fact, the effect was present and lasted longer beyond 1.5 sec in one of the stimulated monkeys (within 2 sec after trial onset", "statistics": [ { "about": "within 2 s, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.003 }, { "about": "within 2 s, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.008 }, { "about": "within 2 s, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.204 }, { "about": "within 3 s, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.004 }, { "about": "within 3 s, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.007 }, { "about": "within 3 s, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.204 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Within 2 s, both monkeys p = 0.0030, L 0.012, T 0.23; within 3 s, 0.0032, 0.0067 and 0.20 (paper 0.003, 0.008, 0.204 and 0.004, 0.007, 0.204), stimulation below sham in each. The code reading gives the same pattern (2 s 0.0022, 0.010, 0.18; 3 s 0.0025, 0.0067, 0.15).", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "methods-ofc-no-change-in-fixation-number", "statement": "OFC microstimulations did not change the number of fixations within the partner's Eyes or whole Face in the post-gaze window, in either monkey, for windows of 1.5, 2 or 3 s.", "source": "STAR Methods, Gaze distance analyses, paragraph 2", "quote": "Following OFC microstimulations, unlike more clustered subsequent gaze fixations around another social agent, we did not observe any change in the total number of fixations within partner's Eyes (within 1.5 sec", "statistics": [ { "about": "Eyes, 1.5 s, each monkey", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.18, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "Eyes, 2 s", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.24, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "Eyes, 3 s", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.3, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "whole Face, 1.5 s", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.12, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "whole Face, 2 s", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.2, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "whole Face, 3 s", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.22, "p_relation": ">" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Under the code's reading (a), none of the 12 per-monkey tests (Eyes and whole Face, 1.5, 2 and 3 s) gives p below 0.05; the smallest is 0.12. Both monkeys combined, outside the claim, give p = 0.025 for whole Face fixations within 1.5 s (0.044 more per trial after stimulation). Under reading (b), M1-only and mutual events, monkey L gives p = 0.026 for the whole Face within 1.5 s, 1 of 12 tests.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "methods-ofc-longer-face-looking", "statement": "With OFC microstimulations the stimulated monkey spent more time looking within the partner's whole Face in the post-gaze epoch (48.9 ms more than with shams, both monkeys combined), and more weakly within the Eyes; dmPFC and ACCg showed no such effect.", "source": "STAR Methods, Gaze distance analyses, paragraph 2", "quote": "With OFC microstimulations, the monkeys spent more time looking within the partner's whole Face (p = 0.003, stim minus sham difference = 48.9 msec for both monkeys combined; p = 0.008, diff = 66.6 msec for monkey L and p = 0.129, diff = 39.5 msec for monkey T)", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC whole Face, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.003 }, { "about": "OFC whole Face, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.008 }, { "about": "OFC whole Face, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.129 }, { "about": "dmPFC whole Face, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.683 }, { "about": "ACCg whole Face, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.848 }, { "about": "OFC Eyes, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.044 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "The tests hold with the code's M1-only events; OFC whole Face p = 0.0025 with stimulation longer (L 0.0067, T 0.15), OFC Eyes p = 0.039, dmPFC 0.80, ACCg 0.93 (paper 0.003, 0.008, 0.129, 0.044, 0.683, 0.848). Under reading (a), the median of day differences, OFC whole Face is 52.8 ms (expected 48.9 plus or minus 4.89) and monkey L 65.1 ms (66.6 plus or minus 6.66), within tolerance, monkey T 46.2 ms (39.5 plus or minus 3.95) is not; reading (b), the mean, gives 62.6, 85.3 and 34.3 ms, none within. dmPFC -14.7 ms matches -14.5; ACCg -2.2 ms against 3.4 and OFC Eyes 12.2 ms against 16.5 do not. With M1-only and mutual events the OFC whole Face test still holds (p = 0.030) but OFC Eyes does not (p = 0.19).", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "methods-mouth-stimulation-no-effect", "statement": "When microstimulations were triggered by looking at the partner's Mouth (or at an RDM stimulus at the Mouth location), none of the three areas changed social or non-social gaze distance, in either hemifield.", "source": "STAR Methods, Gaze distance analyses (Mouth stimulation); Results, Closed-loop microstimulations of OFC facilitate momentary social attention in the spatial dimension, paragraph 4", "quote": "On the day level, none of the three brain regions had any microstimulation effect on social gaze distance (OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "social, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 1, "n": "5 days from monkey T" }, { "about": "social, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 1 }, { "about": "social, ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.125 }, { "about": "social, each hemifield, all areas", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.18, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "non-social, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 1 }, { "about": "non-social, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.188 }, { "about": "non-social, ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.188 }, { "about": "non-social, each hemifield, all areas", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.06, "p_relation": ">" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "None of the 27 tests on the Mouth days gives p below 0.05. Social OFC, dmPFC and ACCg give p = 1, 1 and 0.19 (paper 1, 1, 0.125), non-social 1, 0.125 and 0.19 (paper 1, 0.188, 0.188); the hemifield tests give at least 0.0625. With 5 days per area the smallest two-sided exact signed-rank p is 0.0625, so the paper's test cannot find an effect at 0.05 on these days.", "deviations": [ "The Mouth centre is the centre of each run's `roi_m1_mouth`, and the non-social centre that of the Dot run's `roi_m1_mouth` (the RDM at the Mouth location); the files do not say whether the Mouth rectangle is the one used online." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "methods-eyes-vs-mouth-bootstrap", "statement": "For contralateral fixations, the OFC stimulation effect on social gaze distance was significantly more negative in Eyes stimulation than in Mouth stimulation, but not for ipsilateral fixations or both hemifields combined; the difference was stronger using monkey T's Eyes days only.", "source": "STAR Methods, Gaze distance analyses (Mouth stimulation)", "quote": "For fixations in the contralateral hemifield, microstimulation effect (stimulation minus sham) of OFC led to significantly smaller social gaze distance in Eyes stimulation compared to Month stimulation (p = 0.009), while no effect was observed for fixations in the ipsilateral hemifield (p = 0.724) or when both hemifields combined (p = 0.799)", "statistics": [ { "about": "contralateral, all Eyes days", "test": "bootstrap, 1,000 resamples of 5 days with replacement", "p": 0.009 }, { "about": "ipsilateral, all Eyes days", "test": "bootstrap", "p": 0.724 }, { "about": "both hemifields, all Eyes days", "test": "bootstrap", "p": 0.799 }, { "about": "contralateral, monkey T Eyes days", "test": "bootstrap", "p": 0.005 }, { "about": "ipsilateral, monkey T Eyes days", "test": "bootstrap", "p": 0.654 }, { "about": "both hemifields, monkey T Eyes days", "test": "bootstrap", "p": 0.51 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "not_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "With all 27 OFC Eyes days, contralateral p = 0.078 (a, one-sided) and 0.156 (b, two-sided), 0.059 to 0.070 one-sided over five other seeds (paper 0.009); ipsilateral 0.30 and 0.59 (paper 0.724); both hemifields 0.043 and 0.086 (paper 0.799). With monkey T's 12 days, contralateral 0.037 and 0.074 (paper 0.005), ipsilateral 0.35 and 0.70, both hemifields 0.037 and 0.074 (paper 0.510). The Mouth medians are -6.3 (contralateral), -8.4 (ipsilateral) and -0.24 pixels (both), the Eyes medians -21.2, -12.3 and -17.9. Neither reading gives significance for the contralateral fixations alone; under (a) both hemifields combined is the comparison that is significant, the reverse of the paper's pattern. With the code's M1-only fixations, contralateral p = 0.049 (a) with all days (0.040 to 0.049 over five other seeds) and 0.006 with monkey T's days, ipsilateral 0.30 and 0.35, but both hemifields 0.050 and 0.036, so that fixation set does not give the paper's pattern either.", "deviations": [ "Seed 959 is a standard choice; five other seeds are shown." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig3b-ofc-inter-looking-interval", "statement": "OFC microstimulations decreased the inter-looking interval, the latency of the stimulated monkey to look back at the partner's whole Face within 5 s after the trial, compared with shams; dmPFC and ACCg microstimulations did not.", "source": "Results, Microstimulations of OFC also promote momentary social attention in the temporal dimension, Inter-looking interval, paragraph 1; Figure 3B legend", "quote": "Microstimulations of OFC decreased this inter-looking interval (Fig. 3B, p = 0.035, Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided; see Fig. S3A for an alternative visualization). However, we did not observe such stimulation effect for dmPFC (Fig. 3B, p = 0.792) or ACCg (Fig. 3B, p = 0.291)", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.035, "n": "27 OFC days" }, { "about": "OFC, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.188 }, { "about": "OFC, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.092 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.792 }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.291 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "OFC median day difference -0.069 s, p = 0.044 (paper 0.035); dmPFC p = 0.77, ACCg 0.34 (paper 0.792, 0.291); monkey L 0.25 and T 0.11 (paper 0.188, 0.092). The outcome is near the threshold and depends on two details. 91 trials have a whole Face event that starts at the trial sample itself; the criterion's \"starts after it\" leaves them out, and counting them as latency 0 gives OFC p = 0.058. M1-only events give OFC p = 0.0022 (T 0.0024).", "deviations": [ "An event \"after\" the trial must start later than the trial's own sample (criterion, \"starts after it\"); 91 events that start on the trial sample, likely the triggering fixation as the offline fixation detection saw it, are not counted. Whether the paper's code counts them is not known; this is asked of the paper's authors in the findings." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "ili-nonsocial-no-effect", "statement": "The inter-looking interval did not change with stimulation in the non-social control condition, for any area.", "source": "Results, Microstimulations of OFC also promote momentary social attention in the temporal dimension, Inter-looking interval, paragraph 1", "quote": "Further, this reduction of inter-looking interval from OFC microstimulations was specific to social attention as no effect was observed in the non-social gaze condition", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.773 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.08 }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.943 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "OFC p = 0.70, dmPFC 0.13, ACCg 0.84 (paper 0.773, 0.080, 0.943). By monkey, dmPFC in monkey T gives p = 0.034, outside the claim's test. 7,736 of 10,148 control trials have an interval.", "deviations": [ "The whole Face in the Dot runs is the files' m1_wholeface table of those runs." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "ili-missing-trials-41", "statement": "On 41% of microstimulation and sham trials per day on average, the stimulated monkey did not look back at the partner's whole Face within the 5 s window.", "source": "Results, Microstimulations of OFC also promote momentary social attention in the temporal dimension, Inter-looking interval, paragraph 1", "quote": "the stimulated monkey did not look back at the partner's whole Face during the examined time window on 41% of microstimulation and sham trials per day on average", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Reading (a), over the 81 Eyes days, 41.3% (expected 41 plus or minus 4.1); reading (b), over the 27 OFC days, 39.9%. Pooled over trials, 40.5%.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs3b-ili-trial-level", "statement": "With all trials of each area pooled across days, OFC microstimulations still decreased the inter-looking interval, while dmPFC and ACCg did not.", "source": "Results, Microstimulations of OFC also promote momentary social attention in the temporal dimension, Inter-looking interval, paragraph 1; Figure S3B legend", "quote": "Nevertheless, when we combined all trials for each stimulated region, we still observed similar results to the day-level analysis above (Fig. S3B, OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.01 }, { "about": "OFC, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.026 }, { "about": "OFC, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.143 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.301 }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.602 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "OFC median 1.19 s after stimulation against 1.36 s after sham, p = 0.017 (paper 0.010); dmPFC p = 0.39, ACCg 0.62 (paper 0.301, 0.602); OFC monkey L 0.049 and T 0.14 (paper 0.026, 0.143).", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs3c-reciprocation-day-level-none", "statement": "At the day level, microstimulations did not significantly reduce the reciprocation latency in any area; on 86% of trials per day on average there was no sequence of the partner looking at the stimulated monkey followed by the stimulated monkey looking back.", "source": "Results, Reciprocation latency, paragraph 1; Figure S3C legend", "quote": "On the day level, microstimulations did not seem to greatly reduce such reciprocation latency (Fig. S3C\u2013D, OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.13 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.701 }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.4 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "OFC p = 0.11, dmPFC 0.56, ACCg 0.32 (paper 0.130, 0.701, 0.400). Trials with no M2-then-M1 sequence are 86.4% per day over the 81 days (reading a; expected 86 plus or minus 8.6) and 85.1% over the OFC days. 2,689 of 19,474 trials have a latency; every day has one in each trial type.", "deviations": [ "A mutual event enters both lists, at M1's and at M2's own start times; ties keep the M1 event first, a standard choice." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig3d-ofc-reciprocation-latency", "statement": "With trials pooled across days, OFC microstimulations decreased the latency of the stimulated monkey to reciprocate the partner's gaze to his face; dmPFC and ACCg did not.", "source": "Results, Reciprocation latency, paragraph 1; Figure 3D legend", "quote": "When combining all trials for each stimulated region, we observed that microstimulations of OFC decreased reciprocation latency (Fig. 3D, p = 0.011, Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided). We again did not observe such stimulation effect for dmPFC (Fig. 3D, p = 0.777) or ACCg (Fig. 3D, p = 0.368)", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.011 }, { "about": "OFC, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.074 }, { "about": "OFC, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.079 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.777 }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon rank sum, two-sided", "p": 0.368 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "OFC median 0.84 s after stimulation against 1.01 s after sham, p = 0.023 (paper 0.011); dmPFC p = 0.72, ACCg 0.36 (paper 0.777, 0.368); OFC monkey L 0.15 and T 0.078 (paper 0.074, 0.079).", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "partner-monkey-unchanged", "statement": "Microstimulations in none of the areas changed the partner monkey's social gaze distance, inter-looking interval or reciprocation latency.", "source": "Results, Microstimulations do not change momentary social attention in the unstimulated animal, paragraph 1", "quote": "Therefore, we did not find any evidence that the social gaze behaviors of the unstimulated monkey were altered on a short timescale during social gaze interactions.", "statistics": [ { "about": "M2 social gaze distance, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.118 }, { "about": "M2 social gaze distance, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.302 }, { "about": "M2 social gaze distance, ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.064 }, { "about": "M2 inter-looking interval, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 1 }, { "about": "M2 inter-looking interval, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.866 }, { "about": "M2 inter-looking interval, ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.249 }, { "about": "M2 reciprocation latency, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.665 }, { "about": "M2 reciprocation latency, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.773 }, { "about": "M2 reciprocation latency, ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.701 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "M2 social gaze distance, OFC p = 0.12, dmPFC 0.47, ACCg 0.062 (paper 0.118, 0.302, 0.064); the M2-only reading gives 0.11, 0.37 and 0.069. M2 inter-looking interval, readings (a) and (b), smallest p 0.19 (paper 1, 0.866, 0.249). M2 reciprocation latency, reading (b) from the trial time, smallest p 0.46; reading (a), from the start of the M1 look (the mirror of M1's measure), OFC 0.56, dmPFC 0.044 (median 0.11 s longer after stimulation), ACCg 0.99 (paper 0.665, 0.773, 0.701). The criterion asks that no test give p below 0.05 under every reading; 1 of 18 tests (6 distance tests and 3 for each of the four other measures) does, so the claim holds for the distance and the interval and in part for the reciprocation latency.", "deviations": [ "M2's distance is to the centre of `roi_m2_eyes` (M1's Eyes in M2's coordinates); the Methods reading adds the M2 side of mutual whole Face events to m2_all.", "Reading (a) of the M2 inter-looking interval, start of the second minus start of the first M2 whole Face event in the window, follows the Results' \"the latency between the second and first whole Face events of M2\"; reading (b), from the end of the first, is shown.", "The 188 M2 events whose gaze samples are all NaN have no position and are left out of the M2 distance." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs4a-causal-strength-no-stim-effect", "statement": "Microstimulations did not change the relative causal strength of gaze between the monkeys in any area.", "source": "Results, Do microstimulations of OFC also lead to longer timescale modulation of social gaze exchanges?, paragraph 1; Figure S4A legend", "quote": "We did not observe stimulation effect on the magnitudes of relative causal strength (OFC ... dmPFC ... ACCg", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.239 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.962 }, { "about": "ACCg", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.361 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "too_large", "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "The relative causal strength needs the causal decomposition of Yang, Peng and Huang (2018), whose code runs 2 + 2 x (number of IMFs) ensemble EMDs per trial, each with 10 fixed sifts per IMF. Neither the noise level nor the ensemble size has a default in that code, and its example uses 1,000 ensembles, as does the claims file's reading (a), so both readings cost the same. In the run recorded here, one EEMD of one 150-bin series with 1,000 ensembles takes 15.9 s on one core with PyEMD (6.8 s on four processes; the round-2 run gave 13.1 and 5.5 s, so the timing varies between runs) and yields 7 IMFs, so a trial takes about 255 CPU s, and the 19,474 social Eyes trials about 1,380 CPU hours (about 591 hours of wall time on four processes). A compiled implementation at 10 microseconds per cubic-spline envelope would still need about 104 CPU hours. The notebook limit is one hour. The trials, distances and epochs the analysis would use are all in the dataset.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "figs4b-causal-strength-no-epoch-effect", "statement": "Neither trial type nor time epoch (first 45 against next 45 stimulations) changed the relative causal strength in any area.", "source": "Results, Do microstimulations of OFC also lead to longer timescale modulation of social gaze exchanges?, paragraph 1; Figure S4B legend", "quote": "We did not observe effect of microstimulation trial type or time epoch on relative casual strength (OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC, all comparisons", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.16, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "dmPFC, all comparisons", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.67, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "ACCg, all comparisons", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.46, "p_relation": ">" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "too_large", "notebook": null, "notes": "Depends on figs4a-causal-strength-no-stim-effect, blocked by the cost of the causal decomposition. The epochs themselves are reproduced (epoch-days-76-of-81).", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "epoch-days-76-of-81", "statement": "76 of the 81 days had at least 90 microstimulations and entered the epoch analysis; the five excluded were 1 OFC day of monkey L and, of monkey T, 1 OFC, 2 dmPFC and 1 ACCg day.", "source": "STAR Methods, Inter-individual gaze dynamics analyses, paragraph 2", "quote": "76 out of 81 days had at least 90 stimulations. The 5 days excluded from further analysis were 1 day from monkey L with OFC microstimulations, 1 day from monkey T OFC, 2 days from monkey T dmPFC, and 1 day from monkey T ACCg.", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Counting kept stimulations (reading a), 76 of 81 days have at least 90, and the five others are the days the code names, with the stated composition, 08122019 (L, OFC, 87), 12222021 (T, OFC, 80), 11052021 and 12172021 (T, dmPFC, 64 and 67) and 11042021 (T, ACCg, 50). Counting all stimulations delivered in social runs (reading b) gives 77; the L OFC day has 96.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "ofc-slope-unchanged-by-epoch", "statement": "For OFC, the slope of the fitted relation between social gaze distance and relative causal strength did not differ between the early and late epochs, for both hemifields combined, contralateral or ipsilateral fixations.", "source": "Results, Do microstimulations of OFC also lead to longer timescale modulation of social gaze exchanges?, paragraph 1; Figure 4C; Figure S4C-D", "quote": "we correlated social gaze distance and relative causal strength (STAR Methods) and found the slope of this fitted correlation comparable between early and late epochs for OFC (Fig. S4C, both hemifields combined: p = 0.757; Fig. 4C, contralateral: p = 0.882; Fig. S4D, ipsilateral: p = 0.098)", "statistics": [ { "about": "both hemifields", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.757 }, { "about": "contralateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.882 }, { "about": "ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.098 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "too_large", "notebook": null, "notes": "Depends on figs4a-causal-strength-no-stim-effect, blocked by the cost of the causal decomposition. This claim needs only the first 90 stimulation trials of the 25 OFC epoch days, 2,250 trials, which the notebook times at about 159 CPU hours (68 hours of wall time on four processes; about 12 CPU hours even at 10 microseconds per spline envelope, which would fit in an hour only on a dozen or more cores), beyond the one-hour notebook limit.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4c-dmpfc-slope-late-greater", "statement": "For dmPFC, the slope of the relation between contralateral social gaze distance and relative causal strength was larger in the late than in the early epoch (p = 0.054, at the margin), and significantly so for both hemifields combined; not for ipsilateral fixations, and not for ACCg.", "source": "Figure 4C legend; Figure S4C-D legends", "quote": "For dmPFC, the slope of this fitted correlation was stronger for the late epoch than early epoch (p = 0.054 for both monkeys combined; p = 0.048 for monkey L and p = 0.625 for monkey T)", "statistics": [ { "about": "dmPFC contralateral, both monkeys", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.054 }, { "about": "dmPFC contralateral, monkey L", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.048 }, { "about": "dmPFC contralateral, monkey T", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.625 }, { "about": "dmPFC both hemifields", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.037 }, { "about": "ACCg both hemifields", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.77 }, { "about": "dmPFC ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.757 }, { "about": "ACCg ipsilateral", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.381 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "too_large", "notebook": null, "notes": "Depends on ofc-slope-unchanged-by-epoch and the causal strengths, blocked by the cost of the causal decomposition. The 2,250 stimulation trials of the 25 dmPFC epoch days alone take about 159 CPU hours (68 hours of wall time on four processes) in the notebook's timing (2,340 for ACCg, about 166), beyond the one-hour notebook limit.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig4d-dmpfc-slope-permutation", "statement": "Against a null from shuffling the order of each day's 90 stimulations, the dmPFC increase of the contralateral slope from early to late epoch was significant (p = 0.015), not for both hemifields combined or ipsilateral fixations.", "source": "Results, Do microstimulations of OFC also lead to longer timescale modulation of social gaze exchanges?, paragraph 2; Figure 4D legend; Figure S4E-F legends", "quote": "However, the slope of this fitted correlation for dmPFC was stronger for the late epoch than early epoch, specifically for gaze fixations in the contralateral hemifield (Fig. 4D; p = 0.015, permutation test", "statistics": [ { "about": "dmPFC contralateral, both monkeys", "test": "permutation test, 1,000 shuffles", "p": 0.015 }, { "about": "dmPFC contralateral, monkey L", "test": "permutation test", "p": 0.038 }, { "about": "dmPFC contralateral, monkey T", "test": "permutation test", "p": 0.068 }, { "about": "dmPFC both hemifields", "test": "permutation test", "p": 0.131 }, { "about": "dmPFC ipsilateral", "test": "permutation test", "p": 0.455 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "too_large", "notebook": null, "notes": "Depends on fig4c-dmpfc-slope-late-greater and the causal strengths, blocked by the cost of the causal decomposition. The 2,250 stimulation trials of the 25 dmPFC epoch days alone take about 159 CPU hours (68 hours of wall time on four processes) in the notebook's timing (2,340 for ACCg, about 166), beyond the one-hour notebook limit.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "dmpfc-slope-positive", "statement": "For dmPFC, the slope of the relation between social gaze distance and relative causal strength was on average positive in both epochs, so that the closer the stimulated monkey looked to the partner, the more his gaze was led by the partner.", "source": "Results, Do microstimulations of OFC also lead to longer timescale modulation of social gaze exchanges?, paragraph 2", "quote": "Specifically, the slope of this examined correlation on average was positive in both early and late epochs for gaze fixations in both hemifields for dmPFC", "statistics": [], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "blocked", "blocked_by": "too_large", "notebook": null, "notes": "Depends on fig4c-dmpfc-slope-late-greater and the causal strengths, blocked by the cost of the causal decomposition. The 2,250 stimulation trials of the 25 dmPFC epoch days alone take about 159 CPU hours (68 hours of wall time on four processes) in the notebook's timing (2,340 for ACCg, about 166), beyond the one-hour notebook limit.", "deviations": [], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5a-trigger-duration-unchanged", "statement": "Microstimulations of OFC or dmPFC did not change the duration of the Eyes fixation that triggered the trial.", "source": "Results, Microstimulation effects of OFC and dmPFC are not driven by low-level properties of saccades, paragraph 1; Figure 5A", "quote": "Importantly, the observed effects of OFC and dmPFC microstimulations were not driven by any change in the duration of current looking to partner's Eyes that triggered a microstimulation or sham (Fig. 5A, OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.302 }, { "about": "dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.269 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "Under reading (a), M1-only and mutual Eyes events, the event in progress at the trial is longer on stimulation trials for dmPFC (median day difference 31 ms, p = 0.019; paper 0.269), not for OFC (8 ms, p = 0.61; paper 0.302). Reading (b), M1-only events, gives dmPFC 28 ms, p = 0.028 and OFC p = 0.36. The claim holds for OFC and not for dmPFC. ACCg, outside the claim, gives 0.30 and 0.13. 13,779 of 19,474 trials fall inside an offline Eyes event under (a), 12,647 under (b); the 5,695 others under (a) are spread evenly over areas and trial types (27.3% to 30.1%; stimulation minus sham per day, dmPFC p = 0.069, OFC 0.58), 4,227 of them fall inside another M1 fixation (2,036 outside the face, 1,600 on the non-eye face), and 609 have an Eyes event starting within 20 ms after the trial. Counting those as the trigger gives dmPFC p = 0.020 and OFC 0.58.", "deviations": [ "The triggering fixation is taken as the offline (EyeMMV) Eyes event that contains the trial time; the online fixation that triggered the trial is not in the files." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": true, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5b-pupil-unchanged", "statement": "Pupil size did not differ between microstimulation and sham trials in any 10 ms bin of the 700 ms after trial onset, for any area.", "source": "Results, Microstimulation effects of OFC and dmPFC are not driven by low-level properties of saccades, paragraph 1; Figure 5B legend", "quote": "No difference was observed for pupil size between the two trial types throughout the 700-msec period following trial onset for any of the three stimulated regions.", "statistics": [ { "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided, per 10 ms bin", "p": 0.05, "p_relation": ">" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "No 10-ms bin of the 70 gives p below 0.05 in any area; the smallest p are 0.31 (OFC), 0.51 (dmPFC) and 0.11 (ACCg). 2,198 of 19,474 social trials keep M1's gaze in the whole Face for 700 ms; all 27 days of each area have both trial types.", "deviations": [ "Pupil size is the raw file value (a.u.), averaged within 10-ms bins, without baseline correction, as the Methods describe none." ], "assumed": false, "disagreed": false, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5cd-saccade-counts-unchanged", "statement": "The numbers of microsaccades and macrosaccades in the post-gaze epoch did not differ between microstimulation and sham trials for OFC or dmPFC.", "source": "Results, Microstimulation effects of OFC and dmPFC are not driven by low-level properties of saccades, paragraph 1; Figure 5C-D", "quote": "number of microsaccades (Fig. 5C, OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "microsaccades, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.456 }, { "about": "microsaccades, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.581 }, { "about": "macrosaccades, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.055 }, { "about": "macrosaccades, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.23 } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "With the claims file's reading (a), a microsaccade lying strictly within an M1 fixation, microsaccade counts do not change for OFC (p = 0.069; paper 0.456) or dmPFC (0.89; paper 0.581) and macrosaccade counts do not change for dmPFC (0.24; paper 0.230), but OFC stimulation trials have fewer macrosaccades (median day difference -0.069 per post-gaze epoch, p = 0.044; paper 0.055). One of the four tests fails. With the paper's code's labelling, reading (b), none does (smallest 0.15). ACCg, outside the claim, gives p = 0.009 (micro) and 0.004 (macro) under (a). The detector finds 454,642 saccades in the 1,179 social runs (386 per run), median duration 147 ms (95th percentile 1,062 ms), median amplitude 13.7 degrees; in one run the gaze velocity inside fixations has a median of 19.7 deg/s and is under the detector's 5 deg/s saccade limit for 5.4% of samples, so many detected saccades span several fixations. In 202 of the 1,179 runs the MATLAB code's merge of overlapping saccades would not pair starts and ends. The port was not run against the MATLAB code, which is not available here. On synthetic gaze with little noise it finds all 93 saccades with their durations (median 38 ms detected and true); with white noise that gives the data's velocity inside fixations (median 19.8 deg/s, 4.3% under 5 deg/s) it finds 86.7% and doubles their median duration (72.5 against 37.5 ms; 95th percentile 172 ms). The data's durations are longer still, so their noise is not only white. The outcome rests on the assumption stated in the deviations, and the micro/macro labelling changes it (reading b gives 0 of 4).", "deviations": [ "Assumption. The detection here is taken to stand in for the paper's. The paper names the software (Key resources table, Otero-Millan et al. 2014) and says it \"captured both canonical microsaccades ... and macrosaccades\" (STAR Methods, Control analyses), but not whether the gaze was filtered first, and it reports no property of the detected saccades. The paper's code passes M1's gaze unfiltered (script/detect_microsaccades.m at cc0bf994), so unfiltered gaze is the best-supported choice, and the files' gaze is taken to be the gaze the paper passed. On these data the detector's output is not physiological (median duration 147 ms, 95th percentile 1,062 ms, velocity inside fixations under the 5 deg/s limit for 5.4% of samples in one run), which a filter would change; whether the paper's saccades looked the same is asked of the paper's authors in the findings.", "The dataset holds no saccade events. Saccades are detected with a Python port of the Otero-Millan et al. (2014) detector, from the authors' MATLAB code at a pinned commit (inputs), with that code's defaults, called as the paper's code calls it (script/run_saccade_detection.m and script/detect_microsaccades.m at cc0bf994; M1's gaze in degrees from the first valid time sample, passed as both eyes, NaN samples as blinks). The claim is with_inputs for that software, as the claims file says.", "The port uses scipy's k-means (Lloyd iterations from the same starting centres) in place of MATLAB's kmeans, and merges overlapping saccades as a union in the 202 runs where the MATLAB code would stop with an error.", "The fixations that define a microsaccade are the files' M1 fixations (M1-only and mutual), the EyeMMV events the claims file names; the paper's code detects its own fixations (is_fixation with 20, 10 and 0.03), and its labelling, reading (b), counts a saccade as a microsaccade when its start is at least 50 samples after a fixation's start and before its end (script/label_saccades.m)." ], "assumed": true, "disagreed": true, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null }, { "claim": "fig5e-h-saccade-kinematics-unchanged", "statement": "Microstimulations of OFC or dmPFC did not change macrosaccade peak velocity, the slope of peak velocity on amplitude, or that slope by saccade direction.", "source": "Results, Microstimulation effects of OFC and dmPFC are not driven by low-level properties of saccades, paragraph 1; Figure 5E-H", "quote": "macrosaccade peak velocity (Fig. 5E, OFC", "statistics": [ { "about": "peak velocity, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.848 }, { "about": "peak velocity, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 1 }, { "about": "slope difference against zero, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.665 }, { "about": "slope difference against zero, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.904 }, { "about": "slope difference, OFC", "test": "permutation test", "p": 0.515 }, { "about": "slope difference, dmPFC", "test": "permutation test", "p": 0.164 }, { "about": "by direction, OFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.47, "p_relation": ">" }, { "about": "by direction, dmPFC", "test": "Wilcoxon signed rank, two-sided", "p": 0.31, "p_relation": ">" } ], "kind": "finding", "inferred": "", "outcome": "reproduced", "blocked_by": null, "notebook": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "notes": "With reading (a) of the macrosaccade, none of the 14 OFC and dmPFC tests gives p below 0.05. Peak velocity of the first macrosaccade, OFC p = 0.052 and dmPFC 0.88 (paper 0.848, 1); slope difference against zero 0.70 and 0.59 (paper 0.665, 0.904); permutation 0.28 and 0.19 (paper 0.515, 0.164); by direction group the smallest p is 0.071 (OFC CI; paper all above 0.47 and 0.31). With the paper's code's labelling, reading (b), 3 of the 14 give p below 0.05 (dmPFC slope difference 0.030, OFC IC 0.048, dmPFC CC 0.037), so the result depends on how microsaccades are told from macrosaccades. 15,961 of 19,474 trials have a first macrosaccade under (a), 11,354 under (b). The outcome rests on the same assumption as fig5cd-saccade-counts-unchanged, that this detection on the files' unfiltered gaze stands in for the paper's.", "deviations": [ "Assumption, as for fig5cd-saccade-counts-unchanged. The detection on the files' unfiltered gaze, as the paper's code passes it, is taken to stand in for the paper's, whose detected saccades are not described; the detector's output on these data is not physiological (median duration 147 ms), and the labelling of micro- and macrosaccades changes the count of failing tests (0 of 14 under reading a, 3 of 14 under b).", "Saccades as in fig5cd-saccade-counts-unchanged (a Python port of the Otero-Millan et al. 2014 detector, with_inputs). Slopes are least-squares lines over at least 3 saccades per trial type and day; the permutation seed 5 is a standard choice. Hemifields of the saccade's start and end are taken against the centre of roi_m2_face, as for the fixations." ], "assumed": true, "disagreed": true, "data": "dataset", "where": null, "proposed": null } ], "findings": [ { "kind": "other", "statement": "The dataset holds 6.0 control (Dot) runs per day on average for monkey L (4 to 8; 14 of 45 days have 8), where the paper reports 5 on average, and 14 social runs on every Eyes day of monkey T, where the paper reports 15 on average (14 to 15). Either some runs were not analysed in the paper or the counts in the paper are off; the files do not say which runs the paper used. On the 14 monkey L days with 8 control runs, the runs are numbered 1 to 8, each 295.8 to 296.9 s long with 9 to 32 kept trials, so nothing in the files marks any of them as extra.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "code_mismatch", "statement": "The Methods give the fixation counts of Figure S1E as the total per day, and the paper's code takes the mean per session. Because a day has about twice as many social runs as control runs, the Eyes against RDM comparison is significant for every area with day totals (corrected p 0.000025 to 0.00041) and comparable with means per run (0.40 to 0.52), as the paper reports.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "metadata_insufficient", "statement": "Neither the files nor the paper give the padding of the Eyes ROI (the Methods text has the number missing), nor how fixation events were assigned to ROIs. 6% of the M1 Eyes events of social runs and 11% of those of Dot runs have a mean gaze position outside the Eyes rectangle of their file, and 3% and 10% of whole Face events outside the Face rectangle. The description of `laterality_label` does not name its reference; it matches the centre of `roi_m2_face` for 99.98% of M1 events.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "metadata_insufficient", "statement": "The Dot (control) runs do not hold `roi_m2_face`, the reference of their hemifield split, nor say that their `roi_m1_eyes` is the RDM stimulus; both are inferred, the first from the same day's social runs and the second from the Methods.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "methods_unavailable", "statement": "Question for the paper's authors. For the inter-looking interval, does a whole Face event that starts on the trial sample itself (91 trials; likely the triggering fixation as the offline detection found it) count as the look back with latency 0? Counting it changes the OFC day-level p from 0.044 to 0.058. And is the inter-looking interval taken over M1-only events or M1-only and mutual events, as the Methods say (OFC p 0.0022 against 0.044)?", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "methods_unavailable", "statement": "Question for the paper's authors. Is M2's reciprocation latency measured from the start of M1's look at M2 or from the trial time? Measured from M1's look, dmPFC gives p = 0.044; from the trial, no area is below 0.46. And how is the p-value of the Eyes against Mouth bootstrap computed (one- or two-sided, and which tail)?", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "Trial times fall inside an offline M1 event in the triggering ROI on 71% of social Eyes trials and 62% of Dot Eyes trials, against 5 to 20% for times shifted by 0.5 to 2 s; this is consistent with a shared clock of trials and events, and shows that about 30% of online triggers do not coincide with an offline fixation in the ROI (65 of 954 social Eyes runs are below 50%).", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "metadata_insufficient", "statement": "The fixation tables are named alike but cut the face differently. m1_neface (and m2_neface) is the face outside the Eyes and includes the Mouth (all 23,641 m1_mouth events are in it), while mutual_face is the face outside both the Eyes and the Mouth (mutual_wholeface equals mutual_eye plus mutual_face plus mutual_mouth). The table descriptions do not say so.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "other", "statement": "The files hold no saccade events. Run on M1's gaze as the paper's code calls it, the Otero-Millan et al. (2014) detector finds 386 saccades per social run with a median duration of 147 ms and a 95th percentile of 1,062 ms; the gaze velocity inside fixations (median about 20 deg/s in one run) is above the detector's 5 deg/s saccade limit for about 95% of samples, so many detected saccades span several fixations. In 202 of 1,179 social runs, the MATLAB code's merge of overlapping saccades yields unequal numbers of starts and ends, where that code would stop with an error. Whether the paper's gaze was filtered before detection is not stated.", "found": null, "status": null }, { "kind": "methods_unavailable", "statement": "Question for the paper's authors. Was M1's gaze filtered before the Otero-Millan et al. (2014) detector was run, and what durations and amplitudes did the detected saccades have? Run on the files' gaze unfiltered, as script/detect_microsaccades.m passes it, the detector gives a median duration of 147 ms (95th percentile 1,062 ms), and the two saccade outcomes (OFC macrosaccade counts p = 0.044 against the paper's 0.055; 0 of 14 kinematics tests failing) rest on this detection standing in for the paper's. With the code's labelling of microsaccades the counts give no failing test and the kinematics 3 of 14.", "found": null, "status": null } ], "reconciliation": null, "verifications": [ { "date": "2026-11-01", "kind": "agent", "by": "Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook)", "reviewed": "Round 1. The first executed notebook with the conclusion cells and the summary removed, the helper module and the claims file, with the paper. The verifier tested helper functions on synthetic inputs and checked signrank against a normal approximation. Its report had no attempt record and gave its own outcome for each claim; 35 of 36 agree with the record as it then stood.", "agreed": 35, "of": 36, "disagreements": [ { "claim": "fig5a-trigger-duration-unchanged", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "reason": "Cell 68: OFC holds (p = 0.61 / 0.36), but dmPFC triggering fixations are longer after stimulation under both readings (p = 0.019 / 0.028; paper 0.269). 29% of trials (5,695 of 19,474) have no M1 Eyes event in progress at the trial time; this selection is left uninvestigated, and the failing dmPFC test depends on it (B6)." } ] }, { "date": "2026-11-01", "kind": "agent", "by": "Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook)", "reviewed": "Round 2. The full executed notebook after the round-1 revision, the helper module, the claims file and the attempt record, with the paper. The verifier agrees with 34 of the 36 outcomes; for the two saccade claims it agrees with the outcomes as computed but asks that they be marked as resting on an assumption. It also corrected the headline counts of its round-1 report (22 reproduced, 4 partially reproduced, 2 not reproduced and 8 blocked), and reported that the Summary's \"6% of the M1 Eyes events have a mean position outside the Eyes rectangle\" holds only for social runs (6.3%; Dot runs 10.7%); the Summary now gives both.", "agreed": 34, "of": 36, "disagreements": [ { "claim": "fig5cd-saccade-counts-unchanged", "outcome": "partially_reproduced", "reason": "Agrees with the outcome as computed, but it rests on an assumption that is not stated. The detector's output is not physiological: cell 101 gives a median saccade duration of 147 ms, 95th percentile 1,062 ms, median amplitude 13.7 degrees and 386 saccades per run, and in cell 102 gaze velocity inside fixations has a median of 19.7 deg/s and is under the 5 deg/s limit for only 5.4% of samples. The micro/macro labels may not mean much, as the record says many detected saccades span several fixations. The outcome depends on the labelling (reading b gives 0 of 4 failing tests, against 1 of 4 under a), and the port was never checked against the MATLAB code on any sample. The outcome depends on this detection standing in fairly for the paper's, including that the paper did not filter the gaze first, and should be marked assumed: true with the assumption stated; it is not clearly reasonable given the notebook's own diagnostics." }, { "claim": "fig5e-h-saccade-kinematics-unchanged", "outcome": "reproduced", "reason": "Agrees with the outcome as computed, but it rests on an assumption that is not stated. The detector's output is not physiological: cell 101 gives a median saccade duration of 147 ms, 95th percentile 1,062 ms, median amplitude 13.7 degrees and 386 saccades per run, and in cell 102 gaze velocity inside fixations has a median of 19.7 deg/s and is under the 5 deg/s limit for only 5.4% of samples. The micro/macro labels may not mean much, as the record says many detected saccades span several fixations. The outcome depends on the labelling (reading b gives 3 of 14 failing tests, against 0 of 14 under a), and the port was never checked against the MATLAB code on any sample. The outcome depends on this detection standing in fairly for the paper's, including that the paper did not filter the gaze first, and should be marked assumed: true with the assumption stated; it is not clearly reasonable given the notebook's own diagnostics." } ] } ] } ], "entries": [ { "name": "000959-fan-2024", "type": "reproduction", "title": "Closed-loop OFC microstimulation and dynamic social attention (Fan et al. 2024)", "description": "Tests the findings of Fan, Dal Monte, Nair, Fagan and Chang (2024) on dandiset 000959, which holds the gaze, pupil, fixation events and stimulation times of every run of the 81 Eyes and 15 Mouth stimulation days of two stimulated monkeys. It compares social gaze distance, its hemifield split, inter-looking interval, reciprocation latency, the partner's gaze, fixation counts and durations, pupil size and the trial counts between microstimulation and sham trials, and detects saccades with a port of the Otero-Millan et al. (2014) detector to test their counts and kinematics. The causal decomposition is not run; its cost is timed.", "datasets": [ "dandi:000959" ], "papers": [ "10.1016/j.neuron.2024.05.004" ], "derived_from": [], "notebooks": [ { "path": "reproduce_fan_2024.ipynb", "title": "Reproducing Fan et al. (2024) from dandiset 000959", "executed": "notebooks/000959-fan-2024/reproduce_fan_2024.html" } ] } ] }