Cargando…

A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces

Selecting suitable feature types is crucial to obtain good overall brain–computer interface performance. Popular feature types include logarithmic band power (logBP), autoregressive (AR) parameters, time-domain parameters, and wavelet-based methods. In this study, we focused on different variants of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brunner, Clemens, Billinger, Martin, Vidaurre, Carmen, Neuper, Christa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21947797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-011-0828-x
_version_ 1782215650153857024
author Brunner, Clemens
Billinger, Martin
Vidaurre, Carmen
Neuper, Christa
author_facet Brunner, Clemens
Billinger, Martin
Vidaurre, Carmen
Neuper, Christa
author_sort Brunner, Clemens
collection PubMed
description Selecting suitable feature types is crucial to obtain good overall brain–computer interface performance. Popular feature types include logarithmic band power (logBP), autoregressive (AR) parameters, time-domain parameters, and wavelet-based methods. In this study, we focused on different variants of AR models and compare performance with logBP features. In particular, we analyzed univariate, vector, and bilinear AR models. We used four-class motor imagery data from nine healthy users over two sessions. We used the first session to optimize parameters such as model order and frequency bands. We then evaluated optimized feature extraction methods on the unseen second session. We found that band power yields significantly higher classification accuracies than AR methods. However, we did not update the bias of the classifiers for the second session in our analysis procedure. When updating the bias at the beginning of a new session, we found no significant differences between all methods anymore. Furthermore, our results indicate that subject-specific optimization is not better than globally optimized parameters. The comparison within the AR methods showed that the vector model is significantly better than both univariate and bilinear variants. Finally, adding the prediction error variance to the feature space significantly improved classification results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3208819
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32088192011-11-28 A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces Brunner, Clemens Billinger, Martin Vidaurre, Carmen Neuper, Christa Med Biol Eng Comput Original Article Selecting suitable feature types is crucial to obtain good overall brain–computer interface performance. Popular feature types include logarithmic band power (logBP), autoregressive (AR) parameters, time-domain parameters, and wavelet-based methods. In this study, we focused on different variants of AR models and compare performance with logBP features. In particular, we analyzed univariate, vector, and bilinear AR models. We used four-class motor imagery data from nine healthy users over two sessions. We used the first session to optimize parameters such as model order and frequency bands. We then evaluated optimized feature extraction methods on the unseen second session. We found that band power yields significantly higher classification accuracies than AR methods. However, we did not update the bias of the classifiers for the second session in our analysis procedure. When updating the bias at the beginning of a new session, we found no significant differences between all methods anymore. Furthermore, our results indicate that subject-specific optimization is not better than globally optimized parameters. The comparison within the AR methods showed that the vector model is significantly better than both univariate and bilinear variants. Finally, adding the prediction error variance to the feature space significantly improved classification results. Springer-Verlag 2011-09-25 2011 /pmc/articles/PMC3208819/ /pubmed/21947797 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-011-0828-x Text en © The Author(s) 2011 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Brunner, Clemens
Billinger, Martin
Vidaurre, Carmen
Neuper, Christa
A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces
title A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces
title_full A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces
title_fullStr A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces
title_short A comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces
title_sort comparison of univariate, vector, bilinear autoregressive, and band power features for brain–computer interfaces
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208819/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21947797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-011-0828-x
work_keys_str_mv AT brunnerclemens acomparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces
AT billingermartin acomparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces
AT vidaurrecarmen acomparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces
AT neuperchrista acomparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces
AT brunnerclemens comparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces
AT billingermartin comparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces
AT vidaurrecarmen comparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces
AT neuperchrista comparisonofunivariatevectorbilinearautoregressiveandbandpowerfeaturesforbraincomputerinterfaces