4.5 Article

Improved robust weighted averaging for event-related potentials in EEG

期刊

BIOCYBERNETICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 1036-1046

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbe.2019.09.002

关键词

EEG; Noise reduction; ERP; Robust methods; Weighted averaging

资金

  1. Institute of Informatics [BK204/RAU2/2019, BKM560/RAU2/2018]
  2. Institute of Electronics [BK-2019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to improve the robust weighted averaging based on criterion function minimization and assess its effectiveness for extracting event-related brain potentials (ERP) from electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings. The areas of improvement include significantly lower averaging error (45% lower RMSE and 37% lower maximum difference than for original implementation) and increased robustness to local minima, strong outliers and corrupted epochs common to real-life EEG signals, especially from low-cost devices. Our proposed procedure was tested on two datasets, one artificially generated for purposes of this study (including different noise sources) and one real-life dataset collected with Emotiv EPOCthorn. The lower error results mainly from more effective rejection (lowering the weights) of corrupted epochs by integrating the correlation-based weighting. The advantages of our method over pure correlation-based weighting are lower RMSE (up to two times) and robustness to the algorithm initialization and strong outliers. The performance of the methods was measured using bootstrap testing to avoid dependency of results on data. It shows that our improvements lead to significantly lower error, especially when the EEG signal is not filtered. The values of the parameters were adjusted for EEG signals but they can easily be incorporated in other repetitive electrophysiological measurement techniques. (C) 2019 Nalecz Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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