Single-trial detection in EEG and MEG: Keeping it linear.

Department of Biomedical Engineering, 351 Engineering Terrace, MC 8904, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
Neurocomputing (Impact Factor: 2.01). 06/2003; 52-54:177-183. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-2312(02)00821-4
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT Conventional electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) analysis often rely on averaging over multiple trials to extract statistically relevant differences between two or more experimental conditions. We demonstrate that by linearly integrating information over multiple spatially distributed sensors within a predefined time window, one can discriminate conditions on a trial-by-trial basis with high accuracy. We restrict ourselves to a linear integration as it allows the computation of a spatial distribution of the discriminating source activity. In the present set of experiments the resulting source activity distributions correspond to functional neuroanatomy consistent with the task (e.g. contralateral sensory-motor cortex and anterior cingulate).

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In order to create reading support systems, the feasibility of using viewed size predictions was evaluated using features of EEG waveforms. Viewer's occipital single channel potentials were measured while six sizes of Landolt circles were shown. Features such as series of potentials, latencies of P1 and N1 peaks, and 5 vectors of Fourier descriptors (FD) were extracted from the EEG waveforms. The performances of 6-classes were classified and compared across sets of each feature and combinations of these. The EEG waveforms were transformed when accumulated. The five-fold cross validation rate for all sets of features increased with the number of EEGs accumulated. The accuracy of a feature combination for P1, N1 and FD is significant when the waveform is measured twice. This result suggests that the size of objects being viewed can be predicted using a set of features which can be extracted from a single channel EEG waveform recorded at an occipital electrode.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increase in spatiotemporal resolution of neuroimaging devices is accompanied by a trend towards more powerful multivariate analysis methods. Often it is desired to interpret the outcome of these methods with respect to the cognitive processes under study. Here we discuss which methods allow for such interpretations, and provide guidelines for choosing an appropriate analysis for a given experimental goal: For a surgeon who needs to decide where to remove brain tissue it is most important to determine the origin of cognitive functions and associated neural processes. In contrast, when communicating with paralyzed or comatose patients via brain-computer interfaces, it is most important to accurately extract the neural processes specific to a certain mental state. These equally important but complementary objectives require different analysis methods. Determining the origin of neural processes in time or space from the parameters of a data-driven model requires what we call a forward model of the data; such a model explains how the measured data was generated from the neural sources. Examples are general linear models (GLMs). Methods for the extraction of neural information from data can be considered as backward models, as they attempt to reverse the data generating process. Examples are multivariate classifiers. Here we demonstrate that the parameters of forward models are neurophysiologically interpretable in the sense that significant nonzero weights are only observed at channels the activity of which is related to the brain process under study. In contrast, the interpretation of backward model parameters can lead to wrong conclusions regarding the spatial or temporal origin of the neural signals of interest, since significant nonzero weights may also be observed at channels the activity of which is statistically independent of the brain process under study. As a remedy for the linear case, we propose a procedure for transforming backward models into forward models. This procedure enables the neurophysiological interpretation of the parameters of linear backward models. We hope that this work raises awareness for an often encountered problem and provides a theoretical basis for conducting better interpretable multivariate neuroimaging analyses.
    NeuroImage 11/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.067 · 6.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accurate detection of single-trial event-related potentials (ERPs) in the electroencephalogram (EEG) is a difficult problem that requires efficient signal processing and machine learning techniques. Supervised spatial filtering methods that enhance the discriminative information in EEG data are commonly used to improve single-trial ERP detection. We propose a convolutional neural network (CNN) with a layer dedicated to spatial filtering for the detection of ERPs and with training based on the maximization of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The CNN is compared with three common classifiers: 1) Bayesian linear discriminant analysis; 2) multilayer perceptron (MLP); and 3) support vector machines. Prior to classification, the data were spatially filtered with xDAWN (for the maximization of the signal-to-signal-plus-noise ratio), common spatial pattern, or not spatially filtered. The 12 analytical techniques were tested on EEG data recorded in three rapid serial visual presentation experiments that required the observer to discriminate rare target stimuli from frequent nontarget stimuli. Classification performance discriminating targets from nontargets depended on both the spatial filtering method and the classifier. In addition, the nonlinear classifier MLP outperformed the linear methods. Finally, training based AUC maximization provided better performance than training based on the minimization of the mean square error. The results support the conclusion that the choice of the systems architecture is critical and both spatial filtering and classification must be considered together.
    IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 11/2014; 25(11):2030-2042. DOI:10.1109/TNNLS.2014.2302898 · 4.37 Impact Factor

Full-text (4 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014