MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909338255 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab260c

Deep learning-based electroencephalography analysis: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2909338255 on OpenAlexafffund
Yannick Roy, Hubert Banville, Isabela Albuquerque, Alexandre Gramfort, Tiago H. Falk, Jocelyn Faubert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInteraXon (Canada)Université de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElectroencephalographyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkRaw dataDeep learningPreprocessorMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Electroencephalography (EEG) is a complex signal and can require several years of training, as well as advanced signal processing and feature extraction methodologies to be correctly interpreted. Recently, deep learning (DL) has shown great promise in helping make sense of EEG signals due to its capacity to learn good feature representations from raw data. Whether DL truly presents advantages as compared to more traditional EEG processing approaches, however, remains an open question. OBJECTIVE: In this work, we review 154 papers that apply DL to EEG, published between January 2010 and July 2018, and spanning different application domains such as epilepsy, sleep, brain-computer interfacing, and cognitive and affective monitoring. We extract trends and highlight interesting approaches from this large body of literature in order to inform future research and formulate recommendations. METHODS: Major databases spanning the fields of science and engineering were queried to identify relevant studies published in scientific journals, conferences, and electronic preprint repositories. Various data items were extracted for each study pertaining to (1) the data, (2) the preprocessing methodology, (3) the DL design choices, (4) the results, and (5) the reproducibility of the experiments. These items were then analyzed one by one to uncover trends. RESULTS: Our analysis reveals that the amount of EEG data used across studies varies from less than ten minutes to thousands of hours, while the number of samples seen during training by a network varies from a few dozens to several millions, depending on how epochs are extracted. Interestingly, we saw that more than half the studies used publicly available data and that there has also been a clear shift from intra-subject to inter-subject approaches over the last few years. About [Formula: see text] of the studies used convolutional neural networks (CNNs), while [Formula: see text] used recurrent neural networks (RNNs), most often with a total of 3-10 layers. Moreover, almost one-half of the studies trained their models on raw or preprocessed EEG time series. Finally, the median gain in accuracy of DL approaches over traditional baselines was [Formula: see text] across all relevant studies. More importantly, however, we noticed studies often suffer from poor reproducibility: a majority of papers would be hard or impossible to reproduce given the unavailability of their data and code. SIGNIFICANCE: To help the community progress and share work more effectively, we provide a list of recommendations for future studies and emphasize the need for more reproducible research. We also make our summary table of DL and EEG papers available and invite authors of published work to contribute to it directly. A planned follow-up to this work will be an online public benchmarking portal listing reproducible results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neural EngineeringSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207