| Literature DB >> 32161520 |
Diego Collazos-Huertas1, Julian Caicedo-Acosta1, German A Castaño-Duque2, Carlos D Acosta-Medina1.
Abstract
Selection of the time-window mainly affects the effectiveness of piecewise feature extraction procedures. We present an enhanced bag-of-patterns representation that allows capturing the higher-level structures of brain dynamics within a wide window range. So, we introduce augmented instance representations with extended window lengths for the short-time Common Spatial Pattern algorithm. Based on multiple-instance learning, the relevant bag-of-patterns are selected by a sparse regression to feed a bag classifier. The proposed higher-level structure representation promotes two contributions: (i) accuracy improvement of bi-conditional tasks, (ii) A better understanding of dynamic brain behavior through the learned sparse regression fits. Using a support vector machine classifier, the achieved performance on a public motor imagery dataset (left-hand and right-hand tasks) shows that the proposed framework performs very competitive results, providing robustness to the time variation of electroencephalography recordings and favoring the class separability.Entities:
Keywords: CSP; LASSO regularization; dynamic brain behavior; motor imagery; multiple-instance learning
Year: 2020 PMID: 32161520 PMCID: PMC7052488 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00155
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 4.677
Figure 1Scheme of bag-of-patterns representation proposed for classification of bi-class motor imagery tasks. Within the MIL framework using t-f atoms, the suggested improvement is remarked by a dashed box.
Amount of instances performed by each tested time-window.
| τ[ | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| 91 | 54 | 41 | 29 | 24 | 19 | 16 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| Σ | 91 | 145 | 185 | 215 | 239 | 258 | 274 | 286 | 297 | 306 | 313 | 319 | 324 | 328 | 331 | 333 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
The last row reports the cumulative sum across all range of considered τ.
The highest accuracy scores performed by each subject by fixing the optimal time window (τ*), and across the whole subject set (fixing τ = 2 s).
| τ | 0.3 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 1.5 | |
| 97.7 ± 3.2 | 100.0 ± 0.0 | 98.9 ± 2.5 | 93.7 ± 5.3 | 90.6 ± 4.9 | 94.8 ± 6.1 | 73.2 ± 7.0 | 65.3 ± 6.5 | 63.6 ± 5.4 | 86.4 ± 4.5 | 89.4 ± 4.7 | |
| 95.8 ± 3.3 | 97.3 ± 3.8 | 98.0 ± 2.6 | 93.7 ± 5.3 | 88.8 ± 4.6 | 94.8 ± 6.1 | 67.6 ± 16.4 | 64.0 ± 9.8 | 60.3 ± 10.6 | 84.5 ± 6.9 | 88.0 ± 5.2 |
Figure 2Estimation of J using the optimal time window τ. (Left) the subject A08 (achieving the best accuracy), (Center) the patient A02 (worst accuracy), and (Right) the group analysis performed at the admitted value τ = 2 s for validating the tested MI Dataset 2a. Spectral relevance is colored in gray bars.
Figure 3Accuracy performed at different window length combinations of atom-based instances. The last row beneath the dotted line displays the subject performance with a lower accuracy (A06T, A04T, and A02T) after using the optimization of the atom-based MIL representation stage.
Figure 4Temporal dynamics from the absolute LASSO weights performed within the motor imagery period. Each time series is a cross-validated fold. The last row displays the subjects with lower accuracy after the optimization of the atom-based MIL representation stage.
Figure 5Pairwise similarity between subjects across the trial set assessed when omitting the optimization of t-f atoms (Left) and using the Multiple-Instance Logistic Regression (Right).
Comparison of SVM accuracy achieved by the proposed bag-level representation.
| A08T | 95.8 | 97.0 ± 2.9 | 99.0 ± 1.7 | ||
| A09T | 81.3 | 97.8 ± 3.1 | 98.7 ± 2.1 | 97.3 ± 3.2 | |
| A03T | 93.8 | 98.8 ± 1.7 | 98.5 ± 1.9 | 97.7 ± 2.6 | |
| A01T | 87.0 | 94.8 ± 3.5 | |||
| A05T | 90.4 | 90.6 ± 3.7 | 93.0 ± 3.1 | 95.3 ± 4.4 | |
| A07T | 91.4 | 88.0 ± 4.5 | |||
| A06T | 63.9 | 71.0 ± 6.4 | 72.4 ± 7.9 | ||
| A04T | 63.5 ± 10.6 | 69.0 ± 7.1 | 70.3 ± 6.8 | 69.5 ± 9.3 | |
| A02T | 64.7 | 58.4 ± 8.3 | 62.8 ± 5.9 | 64.0 ± 5.9 | |
| 82.5 | 84.5 ± 5.3 | 84.0 ± 4.4 | 86.8 ± 3.5 |
Each method performing the best individual accuracy is marked in bold. Abbreviation Proposal denotes the enhanced representation without optimizing the t-f atoms, while notation * includes this procedure. Each underlined subject achieves confident differences of performance with either proposal version.
Algorithm complexity of developed learning procedures.
| Time [ | 36 | 36 |
| Complexity |
N.
Indicated time per subject.
Expanded similarity of MIL representation
| Ensure: Optimal bag formed by atom combination from instances having a window-size vector |
| 1: |
| 2: |
| 3: |
| 4: |
| 5: Δ |
| 6: |
| 7: |