4.6 Article

Rethinking CNN Architecture for Enhancing Decoding Performance of Motor Imagery-Based EEG Signals

期刊

IEEE ACCESS
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 96984-96996

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3204758

关键词

Electroencephalography; Brain modeling; Decoding; Feature extraction; Brain-computer interfaces; Convolutional neural networks; Brain-computer interface (BCI); electroencephalogram (EEG); motor imagery; convolutional neural network; ShallowConvNet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the potential problems of the ShallowConvNet method in EEG-based BCI technology and proposes a novel model called M-ShallowConvNet to solve these problems. Experimental results demonstrate the improved performance of the proposed model.
Brain-computer interface (BCI) is a technology that allows users to control computers by reflecting their intentions. Electroencephalogram (EEG)-based BCI has been developed because of its potential, however, its decoding performance is still insufficient to apply in the real-world environment. As deep learning methods achieve the significant performance in various domains, it has been applied in the EEG-based BCI domain. In particular, ShallowConvNet is one of the most widely used methods because of its robust decoding performance in multiple datasets. However, the model's parameters have to be optimized to apply this model to various datasets each time, and we have also found some issues in architecture that disturb the stable training. In this paper, we highlight potential problems that might arise in ShallowConvNet and investigate the potential solutions. In addition, we propose a novel model, called M-ShallowConvNet, which solves the existing problems. The proposed model achieves the accuracies of 0.8164 and 0.8647 in datasets 2a and 2b of BCI Competition IV, respectively. Hence, we demonstrate that performance improvement can be achieved with only a few small modifications that resolve the problems of the conventional model.

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