4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of spectral approaches to feature extraction for EEG-based motor imagery classification

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2008.926694

关键词

alternative communication; brain-computer interface (BCI); electroencephalogram (EEG); spectral analysis; time-frequency (t-f) analysis; wavelet transforms

资金

  1. Vice-Chancellor's Research Scholarship at the University of Ulster

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quantification of the spectral content of electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings has a substantial role in clinical and scientific applications. It is of particular relevance in the analysis of event-related brain oscillatory responses. This work is focused on the identification and quantification of relevant frequency patterns in motor imagery (MI) related EEGs utilized for brain-computer interface (BCI) purposes. The main objective of the paper is to perform comparative analysis of different approaches to spectral signal representation such as power spectral density (PSD) techniques, atomic decompositions, time-frequency (t-f) energy distributions, continuous and discrete wavelet approaches, from which band power features can be extracted and used in the framework of MI classification. The emphasis is on identifying discriminative properties of the feature sets representing EEG trials recorded during imagination of either left- or right-hand movement. Feature separability is quantified in the offline study using the classification accuracy (CA) rate obtained with linear and nonlinear classifiers. PSD approaches demonstrate the most consistent robustness and effectiveness in extracting the distinctive spectral patterns for accurately discriminating between left and right MI induced EEGs. This observation is based on an analysis of data recorded from eleven subjects over two sessions of BCI experiments. In addition, generalization capabilities of the classifiers reflected in their intersession performance are discussed in the paper.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据