4.6 Article

Anti-Heartbeat-Evoked Potentials Performance in Event-Related Potentials-Based Mental Workload Assessment

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.744071

关键词

electroencephalography; heartbeat-evoked potentials; event-related potentials; mental workload; subjective mental effort questionnaire

资金

  1. Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) - Korean Government (MSIT) [2017-0-00432]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to investigate the impact of heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEPs) on mental workload (MWL) classification based on event-related potentials (ERPs). The results showed that HEPs overlapped or interfered with ERPs, leading to a decrease in accuracy of MWL classification.
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of heartbeat-evoked potentials (HEPs) on the performance of an event-related potential (ERP)-based classification of mental workload (MWL). We produced low- and high-MWLs using a mental arithmetic task and measured the ERP response of 14 participants. ERP trials were divided into three conditions based on the effect of HEPs on ERPs: ERPHEP, containing the heartbeat in a period of 280-700ms in ERP epochs after the target; ERPA-HEP, not including the heartbeat within the same period; and ERPT, all trials including ERPA-HEP and ERPHEP. We then compared MWL classification performance using the amplitude and latency of the P600 ERP among the three conditions. The ERPA-HEP condition achieved an accuracy of 100% using a radial basis function-support vector machine (with 10-fold cross-validation), showing an increase of 14.3 and 28.6% in accuracy compared to ERPT (85.7%) and ERPHEP (71.4%), respectively. The results suggest that evoked potentials caused by heartbeat overlapped or interfered with the ERPs and weakened the ERP response to stimuli. This study reveals the effect of the evoked potentials induced by heartbeats on the performance of the MWL classification based on ERPs.

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