2017
DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000006612
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A cross-sectional evaluation of meditation experience on electroencephalography data by artificial neural network and support vector machine classifiers

Abstract: Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Hinterberger et al ( 2011 ) used a linear classifier and could classify subjects in distinct pre-induced meditation states, while Ahani et al ( 2013 , 2014 ) using the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm, associated EEG with respiration to discriminate whether stressed subjects engage or not in a 6-weeks intervention. In addition, Lee et al ( 2017 ) also used the SVM and an artificial neuronal network (ANN) based on spectral features to classify meditation expertise of focused breathing practitioners (CDM-FA), and Sharma et al ( 2019 ) employed ANN to differentiate meditators and non-meditators.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Hinterberger et al ( 2011 ) used a linear classifier and could classify subjects in distinct pre-induced meditation states, while Ahani et al ( 2013 , 2014 ) using the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithm, associated EEG with respiration to discriminate whether stressed subjects engage or not in a 6-weeks intervention. In addition, Lee et al ( 2017 ) also used the SVM and an artificial neuronal network (ANN) based on spectral features to classify meditation expertise of focused breathing practitioners (CDM-FA), and Sharma et al ( 2019 ) employed ANN to differentiate meditators and non-meditators.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, our traditional machine learning method FBCSP + SVM, and the deep learning methods shallow and deep ConvNets for MBSR1/MBSR2 classification all perform almost perfectly on non-inter-subject classification scenarios, with respective classification accuracy as 91.16, 99.81, and 99.95% for mix-subject classification. As a comparison, in the mix-subject classification scenario, the classification of senior/junior/novice Tibetan Nyingmapa meditation expertise attains an average accuracy of 99.05% as reported in Lee et al (2017) , and the classification of expert/novice Kriya yoga meditation experience using SVM and kernel SVM (k-SVM) has classification accuracy of 85.54 and 90.83%, respectively, as reported in Shaw and Routray (2016) . However, for inter-subject classification, the two deep learning ConvNets do not perform satisfactorily, while the traditional machine learning methods CSP + SVM and FBCSP + SVM still perform reasonably well with classification accuracy of 88.66 and 85.00%, respectively, comparable to 91.01, 90.57, and 88.73% reported in Pandey and Miyapuram (2021) for a theoretically more discriminative task of experts/non-experts/non-meditators classification.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Meditation expertise increases through training and practice, and there will be both state and trait effects which can be characterized in either behavioral data or brain activities such as resting EEG for trait effect and meditating EEG for state effect ( Cahn and Polich, 2006 ; Zarka et al, 2022 ). There is lack of studies on classification of brain states for different training and practicing stages longitudinally for individual meditation practitioners, but some efforts have been spent on classifying subjects with different levels of meditation expertise using EEG in either the meditating states ( Shaw and Routray, 2016 ; Lee et al, 2017 ; Pandey and Miyapuram, 2021 ) or the resting states ( Sharma et al, 2019 ), as detailed in Table 6 , where the results of our study in this paper on meditation stage classification using meditation EEG (MBSR1/MBSR2) and resting state EEG (REST1/REST2), are also presented for ease of comparison.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this technique, the HRV features (linear and nonlinear) are transformed to auditory signal pitch, timbres, etc., by a process known as sonification. On implementation of machine learning-based discrimination of Deka and Deka BioMedical Engineering OnLine (2023) 22:35 meditative and pre-meditative state it has been noticed that only a few works [14,27,93,94] employ machine learning techniques (pattern recognition, SVM, pNN, LVQ, etc., classifiers) to distinguish the meditative state from non-meditative state, probably due to the small size of publicly available datasets. However data augmentation strategy [14] such as window slicing, concatenation based techniques can be very effective to enable machine learning-based classification works; whereas, in studies related to cardiac pathologies, comparatively larger (adequate) amount data are available in public domain.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%