| Literature DB >> 26846163 |
Jijun Tong1, Qinguang Lin2, Ran Xiao3, Lei Ding4,5.
Abstract
<span class="abstract_title">BACKGROUND: Brain-computer interface (BCI) is an assistive technology that conveys users' intentions by deco<span class="Gene">ding various brain activities and translating them into control commands, without the need of verbal instructions and/or physical interactions. However, errors existing in BCI systems affect their performance greatly, which in turn confines the development and application of BCI technology. It has been demonstrated viable to extract error potential from electroencephalography recordings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26846163 PMCID: PMC4743193 DOI: 10.1186/s12938-016-0134-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Eng Online ISSN: 1475-925X Impact factor: 2.819
Fig. 1Feature extraction diagram
Fig. 2The procedure of dimensionality reduction
Fig. 3The grand average of temporal statistic characteristics F1 (Rp, Rn, Cp and Cn)
Fig. 4The grand average of F2 features (IMF1, IMF2, IMF3)
Fig. 5The grand average of projections of EEG onto the 1th eigenvector in B
Fig. 6Confusion matrix for error detection. TN true negative; FP false positive; FN false negative; TP true positive (Testing group results)
Fig. 7ROC curves from using different features (testing group result)
Individual AUC metric values from using different features
| Subjects |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.7475 | 0.6163 | 0.7493 | 0.7550 | 0.7908 | 0.7554 | 0.7990 |
| 3 | 0.8961 | 0.5662 | 0.8024 | 0.8638 | 0.8706 | 0.7992 | 0.8788 |
| 5 | 0.7497 | 0.6774 | 0.7870 | 0.7691 | 0.7896 | 0.8111 | 0.7968 |
| 6 | 0.7596 | 0.5642 | 0.7004 | 0.7486 | 0.7797 | 0.7071 | 0.7856 |
| 7 | 0.8169 | 0.6115 | 0.7843 | 0.8257 | 0.8381 | 0.7992 | 0.8531 |
| 8 | 0.7503 | 0.7161 | 0.9031 | 0.7878 | 0.8967 | 0.9238 | 0.8902 |
| 1 | 0.6547 | 0.5599 | 0.6280 | 0.6576 | 0.6507 | 0.6323 | 0.6645 |
| 4 | 0.6214 | 0.5950 | 0.5943 | 0.6382 | 0.6122 | 0.6146 | 0.6369 |
| 9 | 0.7430 | 0.5144 | 0.5488 | 0.7135 | 0.6184 | 0.5486 | 0.6617 |
| 10 | 0.6510 | 0.4981 | 0.6844 | 0.6246 | 0.6961 | 0.6570 | 0.6711 |
| Average | 0.7270 | 0.6376 | 0.7330 | 0.7501 | 0.7608 | 0.7520 | 0.7818 |
Fig. 8The influence of number of electrodes on AUC. Each bar denotes AUC of features from only one electrode. Each star presents AUC of combined features from FP1 to each of the following electrodes
The score and ranking of our method
| Rank | AUC |
|---|---|
| 1 | 0.8722 |
| 2 | 0.8566 |
| 3 | 0.8180 |
| Our method | 0.7818 |
| 5 | 0.7692 |
| 6 | 0.7479 |