| Literature DB >> 30323737 |
Yaqi Chu1,2,3, Xingang Zhao1,2, Yijun Zou1,2,3, Weiliang Xu1,4, Jianda Han1,2, Yiwen Zhao1,2.
Abstract
High accuracy decoding of electroencephalogram (EEG) signal is still a major challenge that can hardly be solved in the design of an effective motor imagery-based brain-computer interface (BCI), especially when the signal contains various extreme artifacts and outliers arose from data loss. The conventional process to avoid such cases is to directly reject the entire severely contaminated EEG segments, which leads to a drawback that the BCI has no decoding results during that certain period. In this study, a novel decoding scheme based on the combination of Lomb-Scargle periodogram (LSP) and deep belief network (DBN) was proposed to recognize the incomplete motor imagery EEG. Particularly, instead of discarding the entire segment, two forms of data removal were adopted to eliminate the EEG portions with extreme artifacts and data loss. The LSP was utilized to steadily extract the power spectral density (PSD) features from the incomplete EEG constructed by the remaining portions. A DBN structure based on the restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM) was exploited and optimized to perform the classification task. Various comparative experiments were conducted and evaluated on simulated signal and real incomplete motor imagery EEG, including the comparison of three PSD extraction methods (fast Fourier transform, Welch and LSP) and two classifiers (DBN and support vector machine, SVM). The results demonstrate that the LSP can estimate relative robust PSD features and the proposed scheme can significantly improve the decoding performance for the incomplete motor imagery EEG. This scheme can provide an alternative decoding solution for the motor imagery EEG contaminated by extreme artifacts and data loss. It can be beneficial to promote the stability, smoothness and maintain consecutive outputs without interruption for a BCI system that is suitable for the online and long-term application.Entities:
Keywords: brain-computer interface; decoding scheme; deep belief network; incomplete motor imagery EEG; power spectral density
Year: 2018 PMID: 30323737 PMCID: PMC6172343 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
Figure 1The overall decoding scheme for incomplete motor imagery EEG signals based on deep belief network (DBN).
Figure 2The basic structure of restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM).
Figure 3The motor imagery EEG experimental paradigm.
Figure 4The comparison results of spectral power estimations for the complete signal and incomplete signal with different proportional removal (from 10 to 80% with a step of 10%). Three estimation methods were used: Lomb-Scargle, Welch and FFT periodogram.
Figure 5The classification results of the intact EEG and incomplete EEG with various ratios of data point removal (from 10 to 80% with a step of 10%), for the nine subjects (from S01 to S09). Three spectral feature extraction methods were used for comparison: the black lines, red lines and blue lines represent the accuracy of DBN with FFT, Welch and Lomb-Scargle feature extraction, respectively.
Figure 6The classification results of intact EEG and incomplete EEG with various ratios of data chunk removal (from 10 to 80% with a step of 10%), for the nine subjects (from S01 to S09). Three spectral feature extraction methods were used for comparison: the black lines, red lines and blue lines represent the accuracy of DBN with FFT, Welch and Lomb-Scargle feature extraction, respectively.
Statistical classification performance for the incomplete EEG with point and chunk removal.
| S01 | 63.46 ± 7.64 | 63.09 ± 7.85 | 70.38 ± 2.93 | 60.78 ± 8.50 | 60.46 ± 7.88 | 68.54 ± 3.13 |
| S02 | 65.85 ± 5.10 | 66.14 ± 4.60 | 70.34 ± 2.25 | 62.06 ± 5.86 | 62.12 ± 5.40 | 67.82 ± 2.84 |
| S03 | 64.21 ± 6.24 | 65.01 ± 6.40 | 71.20 ± 3.49 | 63.35 ± 6.67 | 62.69 ± 7.34 | 69.30 ± 3.36 |
| S04 | 65.31 ± 4.62 | 66.54 ± 4.24 | 71.24 ± 2.44 | 62.25 ± 7.17 | 62.43 ± 6.72 | 68.30 ± 3.85 |
| S05 | 65.66 ± 3.41 | 66.93 ± 3.55 | 71.21 ± 2.34 | 62.15 ± 7.80 | 63.18 ± 7.12 | 69.20 ± 4.02 |
| S06 | 65.59 ± 4.32 | 66.46 ± 4.24 | 70.52 ± 2.72 | 63.09 ± 8.73 | 62.89 ± 8.59 | 69.36 ± 3.92 |
| S07 | 65.58 ± 4.46 | 65.99 ± 4.30 | 70.79 ± 2.21 | 62.01 ± 8.46 | 62.66 ±7.52 | 69.48 ± 3.53 |
| S08 | 66.28 ± 4.94 | 67.44 ± 4.75 | 70.79 ± 2.99 | 62.31 ± 8.46 | 62.55 ± 8.39 | 69.83 ± 3.56 |
| S09 | 65.25 ± 5.00 | 66.83 ± 4.40 | 70.34 ± 2.75 | 62.40 ± 8.16 | 62.82 ± 8.48 | 67.94 ± 4.02 |
| Mean | 65.24 ± 5.08 | 66.05 ± 4.93 | 62.26 ± 7.70 | 62.42 ± 7.49 | ||
The maximum mean of comparative experiments were highlighted in the bold.
Comparison of classification accuracies based on different numbers of units in the first hidden layer for the nine subjects.
| S01 | 0.62 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.60 | 0.63 |
| S02 | 0.71 | 0.70 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.62 | 0.59 |
| S03 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.62 | 0.73 | 0.60 | 0.58 |
| S04 | 0.59 | 0.67 | 0.60 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.64 |
| S05 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.59 |
| S06 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.60 |
| S07 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.63 |
| S08 | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.62 | 0.58 |
| S09 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.63 |
| Mean | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.61 |
The maximum mean of comparative experiments were highlighted in the bold.
Comparison of classification accuracies based on different numbers of units in the second hidden layer for the nine subjects.
| S01 | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.65 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.67 |
| S02 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.72 | 0.66 |
| S03 | 0.60 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.62 |
| S04 | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.67 |
| S05 | 0.61 | 0.68 | 0.66 | 0.69 | 0.69 | 0.65 |
| S06 | 0.62 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.67 |
| S07 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.74 | 0.68 |
| S08 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.65 |
| S09 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.64 |
| Mean | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.67 | 0.68 | 0.66 |
The maximum mean of comparative experiments were highlighted in the bold.
Comparison of classification accuracies based on different numbers of units in the third hidden layer for the nine subjects.
| S01 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.72 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.70 |
| S02 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.65 | 0.66 |
| S03 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.66 | 0.65 |
| S04 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.70 | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.62 |
| S05 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.63 |
| S06 | 0.63 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.62 |
| S07 | 0.60 | 0.66 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.64 |
| S08 | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.65 |
| S09 | 0.61 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.65 |
| Mean | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.65 |
The maximum mean of comparative experiments were highlighted in the bold.
Figure 7The comparative performances between DBN and SVM classifiers for the intact EEG and incomplete EEG with various ratios of data point removal (from 10 to 80% with a step of 10%), for the nine subjects (from S01 to S09).
Figure 8The comparative performances between DBN and SVM classifiers for the intact EEG and incomplete EEG with various ratios of data chunk removal (from 10 to 80% with a step of 10%), for the nine subjects (from S01 to S09).
Statistical classification performance of the DBN and SVM for the incomplete EEG with point and chunk removal.
| S01 | 70.38 ± 2.93 | 69.68 ± 3.26 | 68.54 ± 3.13 | 68.68 ± 3.75 |
| S02 | 70.34 ± 2.25 | 69.56 ± 3.17 | 67.82 ± 2.84 | 68.25 ± 3.35 |
| S03 | 71.20 ± 3.49 | 70.64 ± 3.70 | 69.30 ± 3.36 | 69.82 ± 2.31 |
| S04 | 71.24 ± 2.44 | 71.24 ± 2.44 | 68.30 ± 3.85 | 68.20 ± 3.90 |
| S05 | 71.21 ± 2.34 | 69.51 ± 3.04 | 69.20 ± 4.02 | 68.34 ± 3.87 |
| S06 | 70.52 ± 2.72 | 69.93 ± 2.94 | 69.36 ± 3.92 | 68.75 ± 3.84 |
| S07 | 70.79 ± 2.21 | 70.23 ± 2.68 | 69.48 ± 3.53 | 69.04 ± 3.30 |
| S08 | 70.49 ± 2.99 | 69.12 ± 3.39 | 69.83 ± 3.56 | 69.27 ± 3.97 |
| S09 | 70.32 ± 2.45 | 69.08 ± 3.11 | 67.94 ± 4.02 | 68.35 ± 3.47 |
| Mean | 69.89 ± 3.08 | 68.74 ± 3.53 | ||
The maximum mean of comparative experiments were highlighted in the bold.