4.5 Article

Deep long short-term memory structures model temporal dependencies improving cognitive workload estimation

期刊

PATTERN RECOGNITION LETTERS
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 96-104

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.patrec.2017.05.020

关键词

Psychophysiological workload estimation; EEG; Electroencephalograph; LSTM; Long short-term memory; Temporal nonstationarity; Temporal dependence; Day-to-day variability; Time-series analysis; Recurrent neural network; Operator functional state assessment; Human-machine teams

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using deeply recurrent neural networks to account for temporal dependence in electroencephalograph (EEG)-based workload estimation is shown to considerably improve day-to-day feature stationarity resulting in significantly higher accuracy (p < .0001) than classifiers which do not consider the temporal dependence encoded within the EEG time-series signal. This improvement is demonstrated by training several deep Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) models including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) architectures, a feedforward Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) models on data from six participants who each perform several Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB) sessions on five separate days spread out over a month-long period. Each participant-specific classifier is trained on the first four days of data and tested using the fifth's. Average classification accuracy of 93.0% is achieved using a deep LSTM architecture. These results represent a 59% decrease in error compared to the best previously published results for this dataset. This study additionally evaluates the significance of new features: all combinations of mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis of EEG frequency-domain power distributions. Mean and variance are statistically significant features, while skewness and kurtosis are not. The overall performance of this approach is high enough to warrant evaluation for inclusion in operational systems. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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