4.6 Article

Cross-session classification of mental workload levels using EEG and an adaptive deep learning model

期刊

BIOMEDICAL SIGNAL PROCESSING AND CONTROL
卷 33, 期 -, 页码 30-47

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bspc.2016.11.013

关键词

Human-machine system; Mental workload; Electroencephalogram (EEG); Deep learning; Operator functional states

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61673276, 11502145, 61603256]
  2. Foundation of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission
  3. Faculty Innovation Ability Development Project of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluation of operator Mental Workload (MW) levels via ongoing electroencephalogram (EEG) is quite promising in Human-Machine (HM) collaborative task environment to alarm the temporal operator performance degradation. However, accurate recognition of MW states via a static pattern classifier with training and testing EEG signals recoded on separate days is particularly challenging as EEG features are differently distributed across different sessions. Motivated by the superiority of the deep learning approaches for stable feature abstractions in higher levels, an adaptive Stacked Denoising AutoEncoder (SDAE) is developed to tackling such cross-session MW classification task in which the weights of the shallow hidden neurons could be adaptively updated during the testing procedure. The generalization capability of the adaptive SDAE is first evaluated under within/cross-session conditions. Then, we compare it with the state of the art MW classifiers under different feature selection and the noise corruption paradigms. The results indicate a higher performance of the adaptive SDAE in dealing with the cross-session EEG features. By analyzing the optimal step length, the data augmentation scheme and the computational cost for iterative tuning, the adaptive SDAE is also demonstrated to be acceptable for online implementation. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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