SEEG lead naming and contact records

This catalogue places the clinical team’s current standard first, followed by published examples and draft codes. The first 3D viewer scenario shows approximate placements on a template brain; the other scenarios are illustrative examples. None of these placements are a patient implant or a surgical plan.

Clinical team standard · left hemisphere

The eight roots and endpoint descriptions below are supplied by the clinical team for standard placement. Their L prefixes identify this left-sided example only; they do not imply matching right-sided leads. No patient-specific counts or coordinates were supplied. Five viewer paths display about twelve estimated contacts each, and three reuse fifteen-contact illustrations. The GM? and WM? labels are teaching inferences from pial proximity and supplied deep meshes; this atlas lacks a white surface or tissue segmentation to confirm them. These counts and endpoint names do not localize patient contacts or establish feasible patient trajectories.

Optional leads · Custom leads

These team-named routes are available to add in Custom leads, outside the standard placement. Each displays about twelve estimated contacts in the fsaverage template; neither is a patient placement.

• LpCsP runs from posterior cingulate toward the superior parietal lobule, using its existing estimated contact positions.
• LpIsT runs from posterior insula toward the superior temporal gyrus (temporal operculum), with all estimated contacts inside the pial mesh. The left mesial temporal example retains an older ten-contact illustration of this route.

Grammar and decisions

• Side: one initial capital L or R for the implanted hemisphere. Bilateral recordings have separate left and right lead records and charts; this standard example is left-sided only.
• Capitalization: preserve recorded labels exactly. The team has specified HplT for its current standard. Historical records with different spelling should remain unchanged.
• Tokens: concatenate a confirmed internal token and external token in that order. Published roots below document actual Mount Sinai usage. Proposed tokens later on this page remain draft, even where the anatomical term is established.
• Duplicates: assign a separate immutable lead_uid and preserve the recorded label. A duplicate suffix such as -a is not approved here; the team must specify its convention before any automatic suffix is generated.
• Unknown endpoint: store side, confirmed target, external_region = unknown, and lead_name_status = unresolved. Use the record ID in the interface until localization establishes both endpoint regions. Do not manufacture a full name from a target alone.

Published examples and cautions

The paper’s legend supplies additional lead roots below, sometimes without a safely verified side prefix. A figure’s parenthetical number counts contacts in the lead; it is not a duplicate lead suffix. The figure’s machine-generated image description disagrees with the text in places, so this catalogue uses the published text for exact spelling.

Published abbreviation dictionary

Proposed codebook for review

These are unverified syntactic examples, conditional on the named regions actually being the internal and external contact locations in a particular patient. They do not assert a trajectory is anatomically feasible, nor that Mount Sinai uses these spellings. Proposed token definitions follow the named atlas parcels in the viewer; a separate SEEG gray matter sampling study documents temporal, insular, frontal, cingulate, parietal and occipital regions as sampled categories at another center. Published roots above remain the only published Mount Sinai spellings here.

The anatomical meaning of every proposed token is written out in its row; the token spelling and pairing both await team confirmation. The viewer’s remaining legacy example IDs are not transformed into these candidate names because their outermost contacts often lie in white matter or outside the brain.

Thalamic targets: ANT, CM, PUL and PuM

The thalamic terms below are target definitions documented in other centers’ research, not confirmed Mount Sinai lead roots. Each still needs a real internal endpoint and a real external endpoint. A lead might sample more than one thalamic nucleus along its length; that belongs in its contact record, even if the approved name uses only endpoints.

The viewer’s L-ANT and R-ANT are generated DBS demonstration labels, with only whole-thalamus template anatomy. They are not SEEG names and do not establish ANT contact localization. Its CM objects are demonstration markers without a sampled external region.

Separate contact record

Keep a lead record and a row for each contact. BIDS iEEG electrodes.tsv records a contact name, x, y, z, and size, with a paired coordsystem.json; extend locally with the anatomical and tissue fields below. Never infer individual contact anatomy from a lead label or a template illustration.

Clinical team decisions still needed

• Provide actual lead contact counts and patient-specific localizations before using the team’s standard names in a clinical record. The viewer’s counts and placements are illustrative.
• Resolve figure 5’s RaCaS prefix versus its “left anterior cingulate” description, and confirm how one-region smG fits the two-endpoint rule.
• Review the draft codebook above separately from the eight standard team roots and optional LpCsP and LpIsT, and specify duplicate lead handling.
• For each real ANT, CM, PUL or PuM lead, provide side and localized internal and external contacts, any intervening nucleus, and approved endpoint tokens before assigning a full lead name.
• Specify how to record leads whose physical outermost contact is in white matter, CSF or outside the brain and whether naming uses the outermost gray matter contact instead.

Sources

• Tantillo et al., “Ictal head roll,” Epileptic Disorders 24 (2022), figures 3 and 5. Published Mount Sinai label roots and example lead IDs.
• FreeSurfer Desikan–Killiany cortical parcellation. Anatomical parcel meanings for draft tokens; no endorsement of names.
• Gray matter sampling differences between subdural electrodes and SEEG electrodes. Other center’s anatomical sampling categories, not Mount Sinai nomenclature.
• Thalamic stereoelectroencephalography, ANT/CM/PUL medRxiv preprint and Gadot et al., scoping review. Other centers’ target terminology, not Mount Sinai labels.
• Rosenberg et al., medial pulvinar (PuM) SEEG study. PuM abbreviation.
• ANT and PuM in temporal seizure networks. Distinct anterior and medial pulvinar nuclei.
• BIDS iEEG electrode coordinate specification. Contact localization and coordinate sidecar.