4.6 Article

An iterative cross-subject negative-unlabeled learning algorithm for quantifying passive fatigue

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURAL ENGINEERING
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ab255d

关键词

brain-computer interface; EEG; fatigue; NU learning; PU learning

资金

  1. Science and Engineering Research Council of A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research), under the A*STAR Institute for Infocomm Research: MedTech Innovation Grant [161-90-77-006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. This paper proposes an iterative negative-unlabeled (NU) learning algorithm for cross-subject detection of passive fatigue from labelled alert (negative) and unlabeled driving EEG data. Approach. Unlike other studies which used manual labeling of the fatigue state, the proposed algorithm (PA) first iteratively uses 29 subject's alert data and unlabeled driving data to identify the most fatigued block of EEG data in each subject in a cross-subject manner. Subsequently, the PA computes subject's driving fatigue score. Repeated measures correlations of the score to EEG band powers are then performed. Main results. The PA yields an averaged accuracy of 93.77% +/- 8.15% across subjects in detecting fatigue, which is significantly better than the various baselines. The fatigue scores obtained are also significantly positively correlated with theta band power and negatively correlated with beta band power that are known to respectively increase and decrease in presence of passive fatigue. There is a strong negative correlation with alpha hand power as well. Significance. The proposed iterative NU learning algorithm is capable of labelling and quantifying the most fatigued block in a cross-subject manner despite the lack of ground truth in the fatigue levels of unlabeled driving EEG data. Together with the significant correlations with theta, alpha and beta band power, the results show promise in the application of the proposed algorithm to detect fatigue from EEG.

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

4.6
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