| Literature DB >> 33924528 |
Quan Liu1, Yang Liu1, Kun Chen1, Lei Wang1, Zhilei Li1, Qingsong Ai1, Li Ma1.
Abstract
With the rapid development of modern social science and technology, the pace of life is getting faster, and brain fatigue has become a sub-health state that seriously affects the normal life of people. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals reflect changes in the central nervous system. Using EEG signals to assess mental fatigue is a research hotspot in related fields. Most existing fatigue detection methods are time-consuming or don't achieve satisfactory results due to insufficient features extracted from EEG signals. In this paper, a 2-back task is designed to induce fatigue. The weight value of each channel under a single feature is calculated by ReliefF algorithm. The classification accuracy of each channel under the corresponding features is analyzed. The classification accuracy of each single channel is combined to perform weighted summation to obtain the weight value of each channel. The first half channels sorted in descending order based on the weight value is chosen as the common channels. Multi-features in frequency and time domains are extracted from the common channel data, and the sparse representation method is used to perform feature fusion to obtain sparse fused features. Finally, the SRDA classifier is used to detect the fatigue state. Experimental results show that the proposed methods in our work effectively reduce the number of channels for computation and also improve the mental fatigue detection accuracy.Entities:
Keywords: EEG signal; brain fatigue detection; channel selection; feature fusion; sparse representation
Year: 2021 PMID: 33924528 PMCID: PMC8069717 DOI: 10.3390/e23040457
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Feature details.
| Features | Feature Details |
|---|---|
| Frequency domain features | Power spectral density in the beta band (12–30 Hz) |
| Power spectral density in the alpha band (8–12 Hz) | |
| Power spectral density in the theta band (4–8 Hz) | |
| Power spectral density in the delta band (0.5–4 Hz) | |
| Time domain feature | Sample entropy |
Figure 1Sparse representation diagram.
Figure 2K-SVD algorithm flowchart.
Figure 32-Back task stimulation diagram; (a) When browsing the stimuli presented sequentially, the subject judges whether the currently presented stimulus matches the N-th stimulus presented before the stimulus; (b) For every 3 s was a letter stimulation and the letter presented in the screen for 0.5 s.
Figure 42-Back task induced fatigue experiment design.
Figure 516-channel EEG scalp distribution.
Figure 6Average response time and average response accuracy of subjects.
Figure 7Comparison of classification accuracy of different channel selection methods.
Figure 8Test time for using full channels and weighted common channels methods.
Figure 9Feature visualization for pre-fatigue and fatigue state. (a) 16 channels of EEG time series in pre-fatigue state; (b) 16 channels of EEG time series in fatigue state; (c) PSD distribution in pre-fatigue state. X-axis is frequency from 0–30 Hz and Y-axis is PSD value. The lines in the middle are the PSD value of 16 channels from 0–30 Hz. (d) PSD distribution in fatigue state. (e) Time-frequency analysis in pre-fatigue state. This figure consists of two parts: upper and lower. The upper is the power of frequency in 0–30 Hz and the lower is time series from 0–1000 ms in pre-fatigue state. (f) Time-frequency analysis in fatigue state.
Classification evaluation (mean ± standard deviation) on sparse fusion features method for 5-folds.
| Subject | Accuracy | Precision | F1 Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sub1 | 0.825 ± 0.01 | 0.842 ± 0.071 | 0.817 ± 0.079 |
| Sub2 | 0.90 ± 0.04 | 0.834 ± 0.044 | 0.897 ± 0.1 |
| Sub3 | 0.97 ± 0.005 | 0.962 ± 0.011 | 0.966 ± 0.04 |
| Sub4 | 0.90 ± 0.02 | 0.891 ± 0.05 | 0.91 ± 0.04 |
| Sub5 | 0.95 ± 0.10 | 0.925 ± 0.012 | 0.906 ± 0.083 |
| Sub6 | 0.875 ± 0.02 | 0.84 ± 0.060 | 0.870 ± 0.08 |
| Sub7 | 0.90 ± 0.013 | 0.858 ± 0.121 | 0.89 ± 0.113 |
| Sub8 | 0.95 ± 0.025 | 0.971 ± 0.081 | 0.959 ± 0.004 |
Comparison of average classification effects of different features and sparse fusion features.
| Subject | Sample | PSD | PSD | PSD | PSD | Sparse |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sub1 | 0.8 | 0.775 | 0.65 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.825 |
| Sub2 | 0.9 | 0.725 | 0.775 | 0.725 | 0.8 | 0.9 |
| Sub3 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.675 | 0.55 | 0.7 | 0.97 |
| Sub4 | 0.775 | 0.875 | 0.85 | 0.825 | 0.775 | 0.9 |
| Sub5 | 0.875 | 0.725 | 0.775 | 0.925 | 0.875 | 0.95 |
| Sub6 | 0.85 | 0.575 | 0.875 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.875 |
| Sub7 | 0.525 | 0.8 | 0.625 | 0.8 | 0.65 | 0.9 |
| Sub8 | 0.925 | 0.675 | 0.65 | 0.775 | 0.85 | 0.95 |
Figure 10Comparison of fusion feature classification effects.