| Literature DB >> 35558735 |
Diego Lopez-Bernal1, David Balderas1, Pedro Ponce1, Arturo Molina1.
Abstract
Currently, the most used method to measure brain activity under a non-invasive procedure is the electroencephalogram (EEG). This is because of its high temporal resolution, ease of use, and safety. These signals can be used under a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) framework, which can be implemented to provide a new communication channel to people that are unable to speak due to motor disabilities or other neurological diseases. Nevertheless, EEG-based BCI systems have presented challenges to be implemented in real life situations for imagined speech recognition due to the difficulty to interpret EEG signals because of their low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). As consequence, in order to help the researcher make a wise decision when approaching this problem, we offer a review article that sums the main findings of the most relevant studies on this subject since 2009. This review focuses mainly on the pre-processing, feature extraction, and classification techniques used by several authors, as well as the target vocabulary. Furthermore, we propose ideas that may be useful for future work in order to achieve a practical application of EEG-based BCI systems toward imagined speech decoding.Entities:
Keywords: BCI; EEG; artificial intelligence; imagined speech; review
Year: 2022 PMID: 35558735 PMCID: PMC9086783 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.867281
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.473
Figure 1Technology map of BCI applications.
Imagined speech classification methods summary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D'Zmura et al. ( | Binary classification /ba/ and /ku/ syllables | - Hilbert transform | - All with exception of 18 electrodes most sensitive to electromyographic artifact | 61% Average accuracy |
| - Matched filters | -Alpha, beta, and theta waves | |||
| DaSalla et al. ( | Binary classification between /a/, /u/ and rest state | - CSP | - All areas | 71% Average accuracy |
| - SVM | − 1–45 Hz bandpass | |||
| Brigham and Kumar ( | Binary classification /ba/ and /ku/ syllables | - ICA | - All with exception of 18 electrodes most sensitive to electromyographic artifact | 68% Average accuracy |
| - AR model | − 4–25 Hz bandpass | |||
| - KNN | ||||
| Deng et al. ( | Binary classification /ba/ and /ku/ syllables | - SOBI algorithm | - All areas | 67% Average accuracy |
| - Hilbert spectrum | − 3–20 Hz bandpass | |||
| - FFT / STFT | ||||
| - LDA | ||||
| Chi et al. ( | Binary classification of five phoneme classes | - Naive Bayes | - All areas omitting occipital and far frontal positions | 72% Average accuracy |
| - LDA | − 4–28 Hz bandpass | |||
| - Spectrogram |
Imagined speech classification methods summary (continuation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooney et al. ( | - Classification of /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/ | - CNN | - All areas | - Vowels: 35% best accuracy |
| - Classification of “left,” “right,” “up,” “down,” “forward,” “backward” (in Spanish) | - ICA/LDA | −2–40 Hz bandpass | - Words: 30% best accuracy | |
| Tamm et al. ( | Classification of five vowels and six words | - CNN | - F3, F4, C3, C4, P3, P4 | −24% Average accuracy |
| - Transfer learning | ||||
| Chengaiyan et al. ( | Vowel classification | - RNN | - All areas | - RNN: 72% Average accuracy |
| - DBN | −2–40 Hz bandpass | - DBN: 80% Average accuracy | ||
| Jiménez-Guarneros and Gómez-Gil ( | Short and long words classification | - SRDA | - All areas | - Short: 61% Average accuracy |
| - Long: 63% Average accuracy |
Comparison of feature extraction methods.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| AR | - Good frequency resolution | - Low performance when applied to non-stationary signals |
| - Limited spectral loss | - The order of the model is difficult to select | |
| FFT | - Good performance when applied to stationary signals | - High noise sensitivity |
| - Appropriate for narrowband signals | - Poor performance on non-stationary signals | |
| - Good speed for real-time applications | - Weak spectral estimation | |
| WT | - Varying window size to analyze several frequencies | - Proper mother wavelet selection is not trivial |
| - Good to analyze transient signal changes |
Comparison of classification methods.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| KNN | - Easy to understand and implement | - Large storage capacity is needed |
| - Error susceptibility and sensitivity to irrelevant features | ||
| SVM | - Effective in high dimensional spaces | - Poor performance on noisy and large datasets |
| - Relatively low storage capacity is needed | ||
| LDA | - Simple to understand and use | - Requires a linear model |
| ANN | - Relatively high accuracy | - Requires large datasets for it to be trained |
| - Flexible and adaptable structure | - High computational cost | |
| - Handles multidimensional data | - Performance depends on several parameters, such as number of neurons and hidden layers | |
| DL algorithms | - Robustness for adaptation | - Requires large datasets for it to perform well |
| - In can be adapted to different problems through transfer learning | - Need high computational resources | |
| - Features can be automatically deduced and tuned | - Difficult to implement for novices |
Imagined speech classification methods summary (continuation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garćıa et al. ( | Multi-class classification of five words | - Naive Bayes | - Wernicke's area | 26% Average accuracy |
| - SVM | - -25 Hz bandpass | |||
| - Random Forests | ||||
| Matsumoto and Hori ( | Binary classification of /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/ Japanese vowels | - CSP | - All areas | −79% RVM Average accuracy |
| - RVM | −0.1–300 Hz bandpass | −77% SVM Average accuracy | ||
| - SVM | ||||
| Sarmiento et al. ( | Binary classification of /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/ | - ANOVA | - Broca's area and Wernicke's area | −79% RVM Average accuracy |
| - Power spectral density | −2–50 Hz bandpass | |||
| - SVM | ||||
| Riaz et al. ( | Binary classification of /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/ | - AR coefficients | - All areas | 75% Average accuracy |
| - Hidden Markov Model | -Alpha and beta waves | |||
| - KNN / SVM | ||||
| - CSP / MFCC / LDA | ||||
| Zhao and Rudzicz ( | Binary classification for presence of C/V, ± Nasal, ± Bilab,± /uw/, ± /iy/ | - DBN | - T7, FT8, FC6, C5, C3, CP3, C4, CP5, CP1, P3 | C/V: 18% Accuracy |
| - SVM | −1–50 Hz bandpass | ± Nasal: 63.5% Accuracy | ||
| ± Bilab: 56.6% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /uw/: 59.6% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /iy/: 79.1% Accuracy |
Imagined speech classification methods summary (continuation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arjestan et al. ( | Binary classification vowels, syllables, and resting state | - CSP | - All areas | Vowels: 76.6% best accuracy |
| - SVM | − 8–45 Hz bandpass | Syllables: 76.4% best accuracy | ||
| Sereshkeh et al. ( | Binary classification of “yes,” “no,” and rest state | - Multilayer perceptron | - All areas | 70% Average accuracy |
| - DWT | − 0–50 Hz bandpass | |||
| - RMS / SD | ||||
| Nguyen et al. ( | Classification of vowels, short, and long words | - Riemannian Manifold | - Broca's area, the motor cortex and Wernicke's area | - Vowels: 49% Average accuracy |
| - RVM | − 8–70 Hz bandpass | - Short words: 50.1% Average accuracy | ||
| - CSP / WT | - Long words: 66.2% Average accuracy | |||
| - S-L: 80.1% Average accuracy | ||||
| Paul et al. ( | Classification of three Hindi vowels | - SVM | - Broca's and Wernicke's area | 63% Average accuracy |
| - AR coefficients | − 0.1–36 Hz bandpass | |||
| - Hjorth parameters | ||||
| - Sample entropy | ||||
| Cooney et al. ( | Classification of seven phonemic prompts and four words | - SVM | - All areas | - Phonemes: 20% Average accuracy |
| - Decision Tree | − 1–50 Hz bandpass | - Pair of words: 44% Average accuracy | ||
| - MFCC | ||||
| - ICA |
Imagined speech classification methods summary (continuation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moctezuma and Molinas ( | Classification of “up,” “down,” “right,” “left,” “select” | - RF | - All areas | - RF: 64% Average accuracy |
| - SVM | −1–50 Hz bandpass | - SVM: 84% Average accuracy | ||
| - Naive Bayes | - Naive Bayes: 68% Average accuracy | |||
| - KNN | - KNN: 78% Average accuracy | |||
| - EMD/IMF | ||||
| Saha and Fels ( | Classification of vowels, short and long words | - CCV | - All areas | - Vowels: 72% Average accuracy |
| - CNN + LSTM + DAE | - Short words: 77% Average accuracy | |||
| - Long words: 79% Average accuracy | ||||
| Saha et al. ( | Binary classification for presence of C/V, ± Nasal, ± Bilab,± /uw/, ± /iy/ | - CCV | - All areas | - C/V: 85% Accuracy |
| - CNN + TCNN + DAE | ± Nasal: 73% Accuracy | |||
| ± Bilab: 75% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /uw/: 82% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /iy/: 73% Accuracy | ||||
| ± Multiclass: 28% Accuracy | ||||
| Panachakel et al. ( | Classification of seven phonemic prompts and four words | - DNN | - C4, FC3, FC1, F5, C3, F7, FT7, CZ, P3, T7, C5 | −57% Average accuracy |
| - DWT | −1–50 Hz bandpass | |||
| Moctezuma et al. ( | Classification of “up,” “down,” “right,” “left,” “select” | - RF | - All areas | −93% Average accuracy |
| - CAR | −0–64 Hz bandpass | |||
| - DWT / Statistics |
Imagined speech classification methods summary (continuation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooney et al. ( | Classification of /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/ | - CNN | - All areas | −34% Average accuracy |
| - Transfer learning | −2–40 Hz bandpass | |||
| Sharon and Murthy ( | Binary classification for presence of C/V, ± Nasal, ± Bilab,± /uw/, ± /iy/ | - CorrNet | - All areas | C/V: 89% Accuracy |
| −1-50 Hz bandpass | ± Nasal: 76% Accuracy | |||
| ± Bilab: 75% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /uw/: 82% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /iy/: 80% Accuracy | ||||
| Bakhshali et al. ( | Binary classification for presence of C/V, ± Nasal, ± Bilab,± /uw/, ± /iy/ | - Riemannian distance | - Broca's area and Wernicke's area | C/V: 86% Accuracy |
| Binary Classification of /pat/, /pot/, /gnaw/, and /knew/ | - Correntropy Spectral Density | −1–50 Hz bandpass | ± Nasal: 72% Accuracy | |
| ± Bilab: 69% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /uw/: 84% Accuracy | ||||
| ± /iy/: 75% Accuracy | ||||
| ± Word binary classification: 69% Average accuracy | ||||
| Pawar and Dhage ( | Muti-class and binary classification of “left,” “right,” “up,” and “down” | - Kernel ELM | - All areas | Multi-class: 49% best accuracy |
| - Statistical features | - Prefrontal cortex, Wernicke's area, right inferior frontal gyrus, Broca's area | Binary: 85% best accuracy | ||
| - DWT | - Prefrontal cortex, Wernicke's area, right inferior frontal gyrus, Broca's area, primary motor cortex | |||
| - ICA | −0.5–128 Hz bandpass |