| Literature DB >> 34976324 |
Yingtao Liu1, Chao Chen2, Abdelkader Nasreddine Belkacem3, Zhiyong Wang1, Longlong Cheng4, Chun Wang5, Yuexiao Chang1, Penghai Li1.
Abstract
Motor imagination (MI) is the mental process of only imagining an action without an actual movement. Research on MI has made significant progress in feature information detection and machine learning decoding algorithms, but there are still problems, such as a low overall recognition rate and large differences in individual execution effects, which make the development of MI run into a bottleneck. Aiming at solving this bottleneck problem, the current study optimized the quality of the MI original signal by "enhancing the difficulty of imagination tasks," conducted the qualitative and quantitative analyses of EEG rhythm characteristics, and used quantitative indicators, such as ERD mean value and recognition rate. Research on the comparative analysis of the lower limb MI of different tasks, namely, high-frequency motor imagination (HFMI) and low-frequency motor imagination (LFMI), was conducted. The results validate the following: the average ERD of HFMI (-1.827) is less than that of LFMI (-1.3487) in the alpha band, so did (-3.4756 < -2.2891) in the beta band. In the alpha and beta characteristic frequency bands, the average ERD of HFMI is smaller than that of LFMI, and the ERD values of the two are significantly different (p=0.0074 < 0.01; r = 0.945). The ERD intensity STD values of HFMI are less than those of LFMI. which suggests that the ERD intensity individual difference among the subjects is smaller in the HFMI mode than in the LFMI mode. The average recognition rate of HFMI is higher than that of LFMI (87.84% > 76.46%), and the recognition rate of the two modes is significantly different (p=0.0034 < 0.01; r = 0.429). In summary, this research optimizes the quality of MI brain signal sources by enhancing the difficulty of imagination tasks, achieving the purpose of improving the overall recognition rate of the lower limb MI of the participants and reducing the differences of individual execution effects and signal quality among the subjects.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34976324 PMCID: PMC8716247 DOI: 10.1155/2021/4073739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Participants' right leg raising at different frequencies: (a) stationary leg, (b) low frequency of leg lifting, and (c) high frequency of leg lifting.
Figure 2Experimental flowchart.
Figure 3ERD phenomenon of the time-frequency diagram: (a) HFMI's ERD diagram and (b) LFMI's ERD diagram.
Figure 4Average frequency-domain energy curves of HFMI and LFMI.
Characteristic frequencies of the alpha and beta bands of the HFMI and LFMI of the 10 subjects.
| Participant | HFMI's alpha characteristic frequency (Hz) | LFMI's alpha characteristic frequency (Hz) | HFMI's beta characteristic frequency (Hz) | LFMI's beta characteristic frequency (Hz) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 9 | 10 | 19 | 19 |
|
| 10 | 11 | 17 | 20 |
|
| 8 | 9 | 19 | 21 |
|
| 10 | 11 | 17 | 20 |
|
| 10 | 11 | 18 | 21 |
|
| 8 | 9 | 19 | 19 |
|
| 10 | 10 | 17 | 20 |
|
| 8 | 9 | 18 | 21 |
|
| 9 | 10 | 19 | 19 |
|
| 8 | 10 | 17 | 20 |
| Mean | 9 | 10 | 18 | 20 |
Figure 5Correlation analysis of characteristic frequency between the HFMI and LFMI of 10 subjects.
Average ERD values of alpha and beta characteristic frequency bands.
| Subject | Alpha | Beta | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HFMI | LFMI | HFMI | LFMI | |
|
| −2.105 | −1.1209 | −3.2531 | −2.3827 |
|
| −1.1536 | −1.0336 | −3.9198 | −2.5407 |
|
| −1.8398 | −1.015 | −3.8286 | −1.6239 |
|
| −2.4525 | −1.5579 | −3.5187 | −2.4161 |
|
| −1.9261 | −1.3741 | −3.9149 | −3.4839 |
|
| −2.8428 | −2.7137 | −3.865 | −2.3341 |
|
| −1.7287 | −1.4509 | −3.5315 | −2.0094 |
|
| −1.6163 | −1.0637 | −2.1449 | −1.2393 |
|
| −1.5344 | −1.2998 | −2.303 | −1.7632 |
|
| −1.4708 | −0.8574 | −4.2069 | −3.0973 |
| Mean | −1.827 | −1.3487 | −3.4756 | −2.2891 |
| STD | 0.4960 | 0.5276 | 0.6460 | 0.6725 |
|
| 0.001 | 0.0002 | ||
Figure 6ERD mean value and correlation of HFMI and LFMI in alpha and beta frequency bands: (a) the ERD mean value and correlation of HFMI and LFMI and (b) the ERD mean value and correlation of HFMI and LFMI in the alpha band in the beta band.
Overall recognition rate, STD, and the mean of the two tasks.
| Participant | The recognition rate of HFMI | The recognition rate of LFMI |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.91 | 0.90 |
|
| 0.82 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.75 | 0.73 |
|
| 0.94 | 0.74 |
|
| 0.85 | 0.65 |
|
| 0.94 | 0.88 |
|
| 0.94 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.88 | 0.63 |
|
| 0.88 | 0.78 |
|
| 0.90 | 0.83 |
| Mean | 0.8784 | 0.7646 |
| STD | 0.00318 | 0.00669 |
Figure 7Statistical analysis of the recognition rate of HFMI and LFMI of the 10 subjects.