| Literature DB >> 24233152 |
Xiaoou Li1, Yuning Yan, Wenshi Wei.
Abstract
The early detection of subjects with probable cognitive deficits is crucial for effective appliance of treatment strategies. This paper explored a methodology used to discriminate between evoked related potential signals of stroke patients and their matched control subjects in a visual working memory paradigm. The proposed algorithm, which combined independent component analysis and orthogonal empirical mode decomposition, was applied to extract independent sources. Four types of target stimulus features including P300 peak latency, P300 peak amplitude, root mean square, and theta frequency band power were chosen. Evolutionary multiple kernel support vector machine (EMK-SVM) based on genetic programming was investigated to classify stroke patients and healthy controls. Based on 5-fold cross-validation runs, EMK-SVM provided better classification performance compared with other state-of-the-art algorithms. Comparing stroke patients with healthy controls using the proposed algorithm, we achieved the maximum classification accuracies of 91.76% and 82.23% for 0-back and 1-back tasks, respectively. Overall, the experimental results showed that the proposed method was effective. The approach in this study may eventually lead to a reliable tool for identifying suitable brain impairment candidates and assessing cognitive function.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24233152 PMCID: PMC3819888 DOI: 10.1155/2013/658501
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1The general diagram of the proposed methodology.
Figure 2N-back task timeline and electrode positions. Here trial time sequences for 0-back and 1-back conditions. Black squares represent each stimulus in the task. The symbol ∗ stands for the target number during each trial. Five brain regions: frontocentral (FCentral): FP1, FP2, F7, F3, Fz, F4, and F8; left sensorimotor (LSM): C3 and P3; central: Cz and Pz; right sensorimotor (RSM): C4 and P4; and occipital: O1 and O2.
Figure 3Task behavior performances with hit rate and reaction time. Here HC represents healthy control and SP represents stroke patient.
Algorithm 1ICA-OEMD.
Algorithm 2EMK-SVM.
Parameters for evolutionary multiple kernel learning.
| Parameter | Setting |
|---|---|
| Function set | FS = {+, ×, exp} |
| Terminal set | TS = { |
|
| |
|
| |
| α ∈ [−1,1] | |
| Population size | pop_size = 100 |
| Maximum generation | max_gen = 100 |
| Maximum depth | max_depth = 8 |
| Reproduction probability |
|
| Crossover probability |
|
| Mutation probability |
|
Statistical test results for 0-back and 1-back tasks with different features.
| Classification tasks | Features |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 0-back | Peak latency | 4.91 | <0.05 | 2.22 | <0.05 |
| Peak amplitude | 4.88 | <0.05 | 2.21 | <0.05 | |
| RMS | 4.00 | <0.05 | 2.43 | <0.05 | |
| Theta band power | 3.65 | <0.05 | 1.91 | <0.05 | |
|
| |||||
| 1-back | Peak latency | 3.53 | <0.05 | 1.88 | <0.05 |
| Peak amplitude | 9.00 | <0.01 | 2.99 | <0.01 | |
| RMS | 7.56 | <0.01 | 2.75 | <0.01 | |
| Theta band power | 4.16 | <0.05 | 2.53 | <0.05 | |
Statistical test results for 0-back and 1-back tasks with the multiple comparison.
| Four comparison groups | Features |
|
Significant difference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| 0-back (SP), 0-back (HC), | Peak latency | 5.21 | <0.01 | 0-back (SP) and 0-back (HC), |
| 0-back (SP), 0-back (HC), | Peak amplitude | 2.86 | <0.05 | 0-back (SP) and 0-back (HC), |
| 0-back (SP), 0-back (HC), | RMS | 8.14 | <0.01 | 0-back (SP) and 0-back (HC), |
| 0-back (SP), 0-back (HC), | Theta band power | 4.25 | <0.01 | 0-back (SP) and 0-back (HC), |
Classification accuracies for 0-back and 1-back tasks with different features (%).
| Classification tasks | Features | Classification accuracies (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0-back | Peak latency | 78.40 |
| Peak amplitude | 86.70 | |
| RMS | 91.67 | |
| Theta band power | 91.67 | |
|
| ||
| 1-back | Peak latency | 75.00 |
| Peak amplitude | 81.25 | |
| RMS | 79.25 | |
| Theta band power | 82.23 | |
Figure 4Accuracy comparisons of 0-back task classification.
Figure 5Accuracy comparisons of 1-back task classification.
The optimal kernel functions for the classification tasks.
| Classification tasks | Features | Optimal kernel functions | Generation number |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-back | Peak latency |
| 73 |
| Peak amplitude |
| 62 | |
| RMS | exp(0.866)( | 69 | |
| Theta band power | exp(−1.68 | 79 | |
|
| |||
| 1-back | Peak latency | exp(−0.628 | 59 |
| Peak amplitude | exp(−0.923 | 79 | |
| RMS | exp(−0.598 | 81 | |
| Theta band power | 0.74 | 62 | |