4.7 Article

Sparse Bayesian Classification of EEG for Brain-Computer Interface

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNNLS.2015.2476656

关键词

Brain-computer interface (BCI); electroencephalogram (EEG); event-related potential (ERP); Laplace prior; sparse Bayesian classification

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [15K15955, 26730125]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61201124, 61202155, 61203127, 61305028, 61573142, 91420302]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [WG1414005, WH1314023, WH1414022]
  4. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [2014A030308009]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K15955, 26730125] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Regularization has been one of the most popular approaches to prevent overfitting in electroencephalogram (EEG) classification of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). The effectiveness of regularization is often highly dependent on the selection of regularization parameters that are typically determined by cross-validation (CV). However, the CV imposes two main limitations on BCIs: 1) a large amount of training data is required from the user and 2) it takes a relatively long time to calibrate the classifier. These limitations substantially deteriorate the system's practicability and may cause a user to be reluctant to use BCIs. In this paper, we introduce a sparse Bayesian method by exploiting Laplace priors, namely, SBLaplace, for EEG classification. A sparse discriminant vector is learned with a Laplace prior in a hierarchical fashion under a Bayesian evidence framework. All required model parameters are automatically estimated from training data without the need of CV. Extensive comparisons are carried out between the SBLaplace algorithm and several other competing methods based on two EEG data sets. The experimental results demonstrate that the SBLaplace algorithm achieves better overall performance than the competing algorithms for EEG classification.

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