| Literature DB >> 27458376 |
Dong Wen1, Peilei Jia1, Qiusheng Lian1, Yanhong Zhou2, Chengbiao Lu3.
Abstract
At present, the sparse representation-based classification (SRC) has become an important approach in electroencephalograph (EEG) signal analysis, by which the data is sparsely represented on the basis of a fixed dictionary or learned dictionary and classified based on the reconstruction criteria. SRC methods have been used to analyze the EEG signals of epilepsy, cognitive impairment and brain computer interface (BCI), which made rapid progress including the improvement in computational accuracy, efficiency and robustness. However, these methods have deficiencies in real-time performance, generalization ability and the dependence of labeled sample in the analysis of the EEG signals. This mini review described the advantages and disadvantages of the SRC methods in the EEG signal analysis with the expectation that these methods can provide the better tools for analyzing EEG signals.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; EEG signal; brain computer interface; epilepsy; mild cognitive impairment; preclinical mild cognitive impairment; sparse representation; sparse representation-based classification
Year: 2016 PMID: 27458376 PMCID: PMC4937019 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.750
Figure 1The frame of the contents in this review. Abbreviations: SRC, sparse representation-based classification; BCI, brain computer interface; CSP, common spatial patterns; DDL, discriminative dictionary learning; LTCSP, local temporal common spatial patterns; SFBCSP, sparse filter bands common spatial pattern; PCA, principal component analysis; BPR, biomimetic pattern recognition; SR, sparse representation; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; EEG, electroencephalograph; BUS, bump sonification.
cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) detection using sparse representation-based classification (SRC) methods.
| Epilepsy | Wang and Guo ( | 100 | 100 | 100 | Obtaining the highest accuracy and robust to noise | ||
| Sparse classification based on marching pursuit | Guo et al. ( | Datasets Z (ictal) and S (healthy) | 100 | – | – | Reducing running time and feature dimension | |
| Wang et al. ( | 100 | – | – | Enhancing the classification accuracy and the efficiency simultaneously | |||
| Kernel sparse representation | Yuan et al. ( | Set A (healthy), D (interictal) and E (ictal) | 98.63 ± 2.80 | 98.25 ± 4.37 | 99.00 ± 4.00 | ||
| Kernel collaborative representation | Yuan et al. ( | Interictal and ictal iEEG database | 99.99 | 100 | 100 | Avoiding the choice and calculation of EEG features | |
| Sparse principal components analysis | Xie et al. ( | Set A,B (healthy) and C,D (interictal) | 99.999 ± 0.0002 | – | – | Focusing on the extraction of signal features with high discrimination power | |
| Wavelet-based sparse functional linear model | Xie and Krishnan ( | Set A,B (healthy), C,D (interictal) and E (ictal) | 100 | Effective combination of feature extraction and classification methods | |||
| EEG data from University of Freiburg | 99 | – | – | ||||
| BCI | Sparse classification based on ell-1 minimization | Shin et al. ( | Motor imagery (left and right hand) EEG from four healthy subjects | 91.67 | – | – | SRC based on ell-1 minimization |
| SRC method based on frequency band power and CSP algorithm | Shin et al. ( | INFONET dataset from experiment and Dataset IVa from BCI competition III | 75.75/96.85 | – | – | SRC based on L1 minimization. | |
| Shin et al. ( | Dataset Iva from BCI competition III | 96.85 | – | – | Dictionary based on the CSP filtering and the band power | ||
| Discriminative dictionary learning (DDL) | Zhou et al. ( | Dataset IVa from BCI competition III | 70.5/94.9 | – | – | Lower computational complexity and higher accuracy than SRC | |
| Classification pattern based on simple adaptive sparse representation | Shin et al. ( | Motor imagery (left and right hand, foot) EEG from 10 healthy subjects and dataset IVc from BCI Competition III | 98.0/96.07 | – | – | Adaptive classification techniques based on sparse representation | |
| Discriminant and adaptive extensions to local temporal common spatial patterns | Wang ( | Dataset IVa from BCI competition III and Dataset IIa of BCI competition IV | 98.21/93.75 | – | – | Discriminant extension: combining the between-class and the within-class scatter information. Adaptive extension: defining the weights by utilizing the sparse representation | |
| CSP in a probabilistic modeling setting | Wu et al. ( | Dataset IIIa, IVa from BCI competition III | 90.68 ± 9.93 | – | – | Proposing probabilistic CSP (P-CSP) model | |
| Sparse filter bands common spatial pattern | Zhang et al. ( | Dataset IVa from BCI competition III and | 92.05 ± 2.45 | Automatically selecting the significant filter bands to | |||
| Dataset IIb from BCI competition IV | 81.17 ± 3.55 | – | – | improve classification performance | |||
| Sparse CSP and sparse PC A | Shi et al. ( | Dataset IIIa from BCI competition III | 90 | – | – | Sparse subspace learning technique | |
| Sparse CSP for channel selection | Arvaneh et al. ( | Dataset IIa from BCI competition IV and | 82.55 ± 12.8 | Improving performance in the case of noise | |||
| Dataset IVa from BCI competition III | 73.5 ± 15.1 | – | – | interference and limited data | |||
| Goksu et al. ( | ECoG dataset of BCI competition 2005 | 90 | – | – | Extension of the greedy search based solution to multiple sparse filters | ||
| Tomida et al. ( | Dataset IVa from BCI competition III and Dataset I from BCI competition IV | 87.64/81.25 | – | – | Introducing weighted averaging with weight coefficients rejecting low quality trials | ||
| Wrapped sparse group lasso method | Wang et al. ( | Dataset I from BCI competition IV | 84.72 | – | – | Simultaneously achieving channel and feature selection with a lower error rate | |
| Comprehensive CSP | Wang and Xu ( | Dataset IVa from BCI competition III and EEG motor movement/ Imagery dataset | 98.2/89.5 | – | – | Contributing a comprehensive CSP (cCSP) that learns on both labeled and unlabeled trials | |
| Semi-supervised sparse classification Jiaetal., algorithm based on 2014 help training | Jia et al. ( | Dataset I from BCI competition I and Dataset II-IV from BCI competition II | 97/82 | – | – | Selecting samples with high confidence according to sparse representation classifier | |
| Subject transfer framework | Tu and Sun ( | EEG data from the NIPS 2001 BCI workshop | 72.49 | – | – | Reducing the training sessions of the target subject by utilizing samples from other subjects | |
| The classification method combining BPR and SR | Ge and Wu ( | Dataset 1: Iva in 2005 BCIC III | 94 | – | – | ||
| Ren et al. ( | Dataset 1: Iva in 2005 BCIC III | 97 | Utilizing SR to solve the overlapping coverage problem of BPR | ||||
| Dataset 2: from Tongji University | 82.6 | – | – | ||||
| Dataset 3: from BCIC III | 88.03 | ||||||
| MCI/AD | Time-frequency representation using sparse bump modeling method | Vialatte et al. ( | Healthy control, MCI patients and AD patients | 93 | 86.4 | 97.4 | Compressing nformation contained in EEG time- frequency maps |
| Bump sonification (BUS) method | Vialatte and Cichocki ( | – | – | – | Perceiving simultaneously every channel, and analyzing more tractably the time dynamics of the signals | ||
| Computational intelligence procedure for BUS | Vialatte et al. ( | Mildly impaired patients progression towards AD group and Control group | 89 | – | – | Applicating BUS to online sonification | |
| Audio representations of multichannel EEG | Vialatte et al. ( | MCI group and Control group | 89 | – | – | Presenting a physiologically inspired method for generating music scores from multi-channel EEG | |