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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |