| Literature DB >> 29376071 |
Md Mostafizur Rahman1, Shaikh Anowarul Fattah1.
Abstract
In view of recent increase of brain computer interface (BCI) based applications, the importance of efficient classification of various mental tasks has increased prodigiously nowadays. In order to obtain effective classification, efficient feature extraction scheme is necessary, for which, in the proposed method, the interchannel relationship among electroencephalogram (EEG) data is utilized. It is expected that the correlation obtained from different combination of channels will be different for different mental tasks, which can be exploited to extract distinctive feature. The empirical mode decomposition (EMD) technique is employed on a test EEG signal obtained from a channel, which provides a number of intrinsic mode functions (IMFs), and correlation coefficient is extracted from interchannel IMF data. Simultaneously, different statistical features are also obtained from each IMF. Finally, the feature matrix is formed utilizing interchannel correlation features and intrachannel statistical features of the selected IMFs of EEG signal. Different kernels of the support vector machine (SVM) classifier are used to carry out the classification task. An EEG dataset containing ten different combinations of five different mental tasks is utilized to demonstrate the classification performance and a very high level of accuracy is achieved by the proposed scheme compared to existing methods.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29376071 PMCID: PMC5742515 DOI: 10.1155/2017/3720589
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1EEG signal and its IMFs.
Figure 2Inter-IMFCC obtained from different IMFs of subject 1.
Figure 3Effect of IMFs variation on classification accuracy for all four subjects.
Figure 4Effect of different statistical feature on classification accuracy for all four subjects.
Figure 5Classification accuracy obtained from four subjects considering different kernels in SVM classifier.
Figure 6Effect of channel selection on classification accuracy for all four subjects in case of CB tasks.
Overall classification accuracy obtained for subject 1.
| Task | PAR4 | PAR5 | PAR6 | EF8 | EF3 | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MC | 88.42 | 88.95 | 91.58 | 96.32 | 96.32 | 97.89 |
| MB | 82.11 | 83.95 | 87.37 | 95.79 | 90.53 | 97.37 |
| ML | 86.05 | 87.37 | 90.26 | 98.68 | 96.84 | 99.47 |
| MR | 89.47 | 91.05 | 93.95 | 98.95 | 97.63 | 100.00 |
| CB | 72.37 | 78.95 | 82.63 | 92.11 | 92.11 | 98.95 |
| CL | 65.26 | 69.74 | 77.11 | 84.47 | 83.95 | 91.32 |
| CR | 71.58 | 74.74 | 80.26 | 86.32 | 81.58 | 91.84 |
| BL | 69.74 | 71.05 | 82.89 | 90.53 | 86.58 | 94.74 |
| BR | 83.42 | 86.58 | 92.37 | 99.74 | 97.89 | 99.74 |
| LR | 70.26 | 77.37 | 81.84 | 94.47 | 89.21 | 95.53 |
|
| ||||||
| Avg | 77.87 | 80.97 | 86.03 | 93.74 | 91.26 | 96.68 |
| Std dev | 8.91 | 7.65 | 5.82 | 5.30 | 5.92 | 3.21 |
Overall classification accuracy obtained for subject 2.
| Task | PAR4 | PAR5 | PAR6 | EF8 | EF3 | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MC | 69.47 | 76.58 | 83.42 | 82.37 | 80.79 | 93.95 |
| MB | 78.95 | 86.32 | 91.05 | 83.16 | 84.74 | 93.16 |
| ML | 70.53 | 83.42 | 87.63 | 90.79 | 88.42 | 95.00 |
| MR | 71.32 | 79.21 | 90.00 | 85.79 | 82.63 | 92.89 |
| CB | 74.74 | 80.53 | 92.11 | 82.89 | 84.74 | 92.63 |
| CL | 64.74 | 75.53 | 89.47 | 91.32 | 92.37 | 93.95 |
| CR | 68.68 | 73.42 | 87.11 | 79.74 | 84.47 | 93.42 |
| BL | 71.84 | 79.47 | 86.84 | 87.89 | 89.47 | 94.21 |
| BR | 76.05 | 79.74 | 86.05 | 85.53 | 84.47 | 91.58 |
| LR | 71.58 | 80.79 | 84.21 | 88.16 | 85.79 | 95.53 |
|
| ||||||
| Avg | 71.79 | 79.50 | 87.79 | 85.76 | 85.79 | 93.63 |
| Std dev | 4.01 | 3.74 | 2.85 | 3.79 | 3.41 | 1.16 |
Overall classification accuracy obtained for subject 3.
| Task | PAR4 | PAR5 | PAR6 | EF8 | EF3 | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MC | 68.42 | 74.91 | 79.82 | 86.32 | 88.25 | 96.32 |
| MB | 73.16 | 74.56 | 81.40 | 85.79 | 86.49 | 93.68 |
| ML | 71.58 | 74.39 | 80.70 | 85.96 | 86.32 | 92.46 |
| MR | 74.74 | 79.47 | 87.89 | 92.63 | 87.89 | 96.49 |
| CB | 70.53 | 72.98 | 81.05 | 87.89 | 85.26 | 91.23 |
| CL | 72.81 | 77.19 | 80.35 | 88.60 | 83.68 | 93.16 |
| CR | 68.60 | 75.44 | 81.40 | 92.63 | 90.00 | 94.91 |
| BL | 74.39 | 74.56 | 84.21 | 87.54 | 83.68 | 94.91 |
| BR | 73.86 | 75.96 | 84.21 | 92.28 | 85.61 | 94.74 |
| LR | 77.89 | 83.33 | 87.54 | 92.98 | 93.33 | 98.42 |
|
| ||||||
| Avg | 72.60 | 76.28 | 82.86 | 89.26 | 87.05 | 94.63 |
| Std dev | 2.92 | 3.05 | 2.96 | 3.03 | 2.96 | 2.11 |
Overall classification accuracy obtained for subject 4.
| Task | PAR4 | PAR5 | PAR6 | EF8 | EF3 | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MC | 83.95 | 90.53 | 97.63 | 99.47 | 98.42 | 99.74 |
| MB | 86.84 | 90.53 | 94.74 | 96.84 | 95.00 | 97.11 |
| ML | 86.05 | 88.42 | 92.89 | 95.00 | 92.89 | 95.79 |
| MR | 84.21 | 88.95 | 93.95 | 92.63 | 91.32 | 97.11 |
| CB | 81.58 | 82.37 | 86.58 | 94.21 | 95.26 | 98.16 |
| CL | 78.16 | 81.58 | 87.63 | 85.79 | 87.89 | 94.21 |
| CR | 88.68 | 92.89 | 96.32 | 95.26 | 92.63 | 97.11 |
| BL | 68.16 | 77.63 | 83.95 | 85.26 | 86.58 | 90.53 |
| BR | 94.47 | 95.26 | 97.11 | 97.89 | 93.95 | 97.63 |
| LR | 94.47 | 96.05 | 97.37 | 96.05 | 93.16 | 96.84 |
|
| ||||||
| Avg | 84.66 | 88.42 | 92.82 | 93.84 | 92.71 | 96.42 |
| Std dev | 7.75 | 6.09 | 4.99 | 4.78 | 3.48 | 2.52 |
Feature dimension and average time for feature extraction.
| Different methods | PAR4 | PAR5 | PAR6 | EF8 | EF3 | Proposed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature dimension | 60 | 75 | 90 | 192 | 72 | 99 |
| Average time (ms) | 52.63 | 60.02 | 76.36 | 2749.30 | 128.80 | 108.11 |