2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.056
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pattern analysis of EEG responses to speech and voice: Influence of feature grouping

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
39
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Rather, it can discover any kind of spatio-temporal pattern localized in time or unfolding along several time periods of differential activity (Figures 2, 3). This aspect makes it quite different from other decoding methods commonly used in neuroimaging and cognitive studies, which usually explore the decoding performance over predefined time windows or over the whole trial (Philiastides and Sajda, 2006; Simanova et al, 2010; De Vos et al, 2012; Hausfeld et al, 2012). Integrating stimulus-related information that unfolds over multiple time periods of differential activity allows distributed patterns of activations in the discrimination between auditory categories to be taken into account, and leads to a more flexible strategy for optimal decoding performance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Rather, it can discover any kind of spatio-temporal pattern localized in time or unfolding along several time periods of differential activity (Figures 2, 3). This aspect makes it quite different from other decoding methods commonly used in neuroimaging and cognitive studies, which usually explore the decoding performance over predefined time windows or over the whole trial (Philiastides and Sajda, 2006; Simanova et al, 2010; De Vos et al, 2012; Hausfeld et al, 2012). Integrating stimulus-related information that unfolds over multiple time periods of differential activity allows distributed patterns of activations in the discrimination between auditory categories to be taken into account, and leads to a more flexible strategy for optimal decoding performance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…We evaluated the significance of our decoding results across all patients using a similar approach as in previous EEG decoding studies (Hausfeld et al, 2012). We used a binomial test (using the Matlab function binocdf), with n = total number of comparisons and k the number of patients showing significant decoding results.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our data-driven approach builds upon emerging applications of machine learning methods to model electrophysiological responses (Hausfeld, De Martino, Bonte, & Formisano, 2012; Mesgarani, Cheung, Johnson, & Chang, 2014; Pei, Barbour, Leuthardt, & Schalk, 2011; Yi, Xie, Reetzke, Dimakis, & Chandrasekaran, 2017). The goal of unsupervised machine learning models (Alpaydin, 2014; Mohri, Rostamizadeh, & Talwalkar, 2012) is to learn target patterns (e.g., lexical tones) without being explicitly programmed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…En este contexto, las columnas relevantes son las que están situadas debajo de la superficie de los giros corticales. Como los potenciales de membrana de estas columnas fluctúan, se desarrolla un dipolo eléctrico (áreas adyacentes de carga opuesta) 6,8,9 . Las oscilaciones registradas en el EEG se producen por potenciales postsinapticos excitadores e inhibidores, desencadenados colectivamente por las columnas celulares corticales.…”
Section: Señales Electro-encefalografícas (Seeg)unclassified