| Literature DB >> 35744539 |
Zhanyuan Chang1, Congcong Zhang1, Chuanjiang Li1.
Abstract
For the successful application of brain-computer interface (BCI) systems, accurate recognition of electroencephalography (EEG) signals is one of the core issues. To solve the differences in individual EEG signals and the problem of less EEG data in classification and recognition, an attention mechanism-based multi-scale convolution network was designed; the transfer learning data alignment algorithm was then introduced to explore the application of transfer learning for analyzing motor imagery EEG signals. The data set 2a of BCI Competition IV was used to verify the designed dual channel attention module migration alignment with convolution neural network (MS-AFM). Experimental results showed that the classification recognition rate improved with the addition of the alignment algorithm and adaptive adjustment in transfer learning; the average classification recognition rate of nine subjects was 86.03%.Entities:
Keywords: brain-computer interface; data alignment; motor imagery; transfer learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35744539 PMCID: PMC9228168 DOI: 10.3390/mi13060927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 3.523
Figure 1Composition of BCI System.
Figure 2Overall architecture of the attention mechanism-based multi-scale convolution network. (channel attention module, CAM; spatial attention module, SAM).
Figure 3CBAM attention mechanism module.
Summary and comparison of transfer learning experiment results.
| Evaluating | Subject | Original | TL | TL + FT | EA + TL | EA + TL + FT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | S01 | 84.98 | 77.85 | 87.41 | 82.39 | 90.63 |
| S02 | 69.86 | 74.17 | 70.38 | 72.45 | 79.23 | |
| S03 | 90.22 | 81.64 | 91.16 | 87.48 | 91.12 | |
| S04 | 78.97 | 73.85 | 80.34 | 74.24 | 84.16 | |
| S05 | 73.44 | 74.35 | 73.90 | 73.69 | 77.29 | |
| S06 | 74.86 | 72.73 | 78.55 | 75.16 | 79.03 | |
| S07 | 82.81 | 75.14 | 86.53 | 77.30 | 92.77 | |
| S08 | 84.91 | 80.96 | 87.35 | 85.40 | 90.87 | |
| S09 | 86.80 | 78.94 | 88.13 | 85.77 | 89.14 | |
| Avg | 80.76 | 76.62 | 82.64 | 79.32 | 86.03 | |
| Micro-F1 | S01 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 0.75 | 0.65 | 0.81 |
| S02 | 0.34 | 0.30 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.56 | |
| S03 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.82 | 0.75 | 0.82 | |
| S04 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 0.58 | 0.44 | 0.67 | |
| S05 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.41 | 0.49 | |
| S06 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.51 | 0.45 | 0.54 | |
| S07 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.71 | 0.52 | 0.85 | |
| S08 | 0.69 | 0.64 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.81 | |
| S09 | 0.73 | 0.53 | 0.76 | 0.71 | 0.78 | |
| Avg | 0.58 | 0.47 | 0.62 | 0.55 | 0.70 |
Figure 4Subjects classification and recognition confusion matrix.