2017
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-67588-6_12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Classification Methods for EEG Signals of Real and Imaginary Motion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A series of tests with a larger group of participants with varying severity of ABI is planned. These tests will permit the investigation of the structure of mental states detected by the algorithm in the context of personal differences associated with the ability to use BCI [19][20][21]. It would also be worth investigating how the pattern and presence of rarely observed signal detected correlate with the effectiveness of using BCI and if there are participants for whom such a method of monitoring brain activity will not work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of tests with a larger group of participants with varying severity of ABI is planned. These tests will permit the investigation of the structure of mental states detected by the algorithm in the context of personal differences associated with the ability to use BCI [19][20][21]. It would also be worth investigating how the pattern and presence of rarely observed signal detected correlate with the effectiveness of using BCI and if there are participants for whom such a method of monitoring brain activity will not work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accuracy˘SD Precision˘SD Recall˘SD PLV [15] 78.9´Á NN [16] 68 our proposed method with solutions from previous studies namely CSP [10], QDA [11], rough set-based [12], [13], and MDA [14] described in Section II. We did not attempt to utilize more benchmarking solutions in this scheme, as most of the related works in this area utilize intra-subject validation, thus comparing to those works was deemed sufficient.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several conventional machine learning methods have been employed using this approach, for instance, in [10], an average accuracy of 64.02% was reported using a Common Spatial Patterns (CSP) approach for 10 subjects. In [11], an average accuracy of 88.69% was reported using QDA, while a rough set-based classifier was used in [12] and [13], reporting average accuracies of 60% and 68% respectively. However, the aforementioned traditional classifiers often cannot model the non-linearities observed in high-dimensional multi-channel EEG and featuresets extracted from the data.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analogous to the best feature subset identification, there are also many works in the literature comparing classifiers (see e.g., [11][12][13]), but few present a systematic quantitative comparison of features [14] and only in [9,10] were the EMG signals obtained from amputees. More importantly, detecting intended applied force has received little attention; with most studies relying on subjects with intact limbs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%