自动伪影抑制算法损害P3拼写机脑机接口性能。

IF 1.8 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Brain-Computer Interfaces Pub Date : 2019-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-03-02 DOI:10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401
David E Thompson, Md Rakibul Mowla, Katie J Dhuyvetter, Joseph W Tillman, Jane E Huggins
{"title":"自动伪影抑制算法损害P3拼写机脑机接口性能。","authors":"David E Thompson,&nbsp;Md Rakibul Mowla,&nbsp;Katie J Dhuyvetter,&nbsp;Joseph W Tillman,&nbsp;Jane E Huggins","doi":"10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have been used to restore communication and control to people with severe paralysis. However, non-invasive BCIs based on electroencephalogram (EEG) are particularly vulnerable to noise artifacts. These artifacts, including electro-oculogram (EOG), can be orders of magnitude larger than the signal to be detected. Many automated methods have been proposed to remove EOG and other artifacts from EEG recordings, most based on blind source separation. This work presents a performance comparison of ten different automated artifact removal methods. Unfortunately, all tested methods substantially and significantly reduced P3 Speller BCI performance, and all methods were more likely to reduce performance than increase it. The least harmful methods were titled SOBI, JADER, and EFICA, but even these methods caused an average of approximately ten percentage points drop in BCI accuracy. Possible mechanistic causes for this empirical performance deduction are proposed.</p>","PeriodicalId":45112,"journal":{"name":"Brain-Computer Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated Artifact Rejection Algorithms Harm P3 Speller Brain-Computer Interface Performance.\",\"authors\":\"David E Thompson,&nbsp;Md Rakibul Mowla,&nbsp;Katie J Dhuyvetter,&nbsp;Joseph W Tillman,&nbsp;Jane E Huggins\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have been used to restore communication and control to people with severe paralysis. However, non-invasive BCIs based on electroencephalogram (EEG) are particularly vulnerable to noise artifacts. These artifacts, including electro-oculogram (EOG), can be orders of magnitude larger than the signal to be detected. Many automated methods have been proposed to remove EOG and other artifacts from EEG recordings, most based on blind source separation. This work presents a performance comparison of ten different automated artifact removal methods. Unfortunately, all tested methods substantially and significantly reduced P3 Speller BCI performance, and all methods were more likely to reduce performance than increase it. The least harmful methods were titled SOBI, JADER, and EFICA, but even these methods caused an average of approximately ten percentage points drop in BCI accuracy. Possible mechanistic causes for this empirical performance deduction are proposed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain-Computer Interfaces\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain-Computer Interfaces\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/3/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain-Computer Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2326263X.2020.1734401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/3/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

脑机接口(bci)已被用于恢复严重瘫痪患者的沟通和控制能力。然而,基于脑电图(EEG)的无创脑机接口特别容易受到噪声伪影的影响。这些伪影,包括眼电图(EOG),可能比要检测的信号大几个数量级。已经提出了许多自动化的方法来从EEG记录中去除EOG和其他伪影,大多数是基于盲源分离。这项工作提出了十种不同的自动工件去除方法的性能比较。不幸的是,所有被测试的方法都大大降低了P3 Speller的BCI性能,而且所有方法都更有可能降低而不是提高性能。危害最小的方法是SOBI、JADER和EFICA,但即使是这些方法也会导致BCI准确率平均下降约10个百分点。提出了这种经验绩效演绎的可能机制原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Automated Artifact Rejection Algorithms Harm P3 Speller Brain-Computer Interface Performance.

Automated Artifact Rejection Algorithms Harm P3 Speller Brain-Computer Interface Performance.

Automated Artifact Rejection Algorithms Harm P3 Speller Brain-Computer Interface Performance.

Automated Artifact Rejection Algorithms Harm P3 Speller Brain-Computer Interface Performance.

Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have been used to restore communication and control to people with severe paralysis. However, non-invasive BCIs based on electroencephalogram (EEG) are particularly vulnerable to noise artifacts. These artifacts, including electro-oculogram (EOG), can be orders of magnitude larger than the signal to be detected. Many automated methods have been proposed to remove EOG and other artifacts from EEG recordings, most based on blind source separation. This work presents a performance comparison of ten different automated artifact removal methods. Unfortunately, all tested methods substantially and significantly reduced P3 Speller BCI performance, and all methods were more likely to reduce performance than increase it. The least harmful methods were titled SOBI, JADER, and EFICA, but even these methods caused an average of approximately ten percentage points drop in BCI accuracy. Possible mechanistic causes for this empirical performance deduction are proposed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
9.50%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信