MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000563309 · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/ab6a67

Comparing user-dependent and user-independent training of CNN for SSVEP BCI

2020· article· en· W3000563309 on OpenAlexafffund
Aravind Ravi, Nargess Heydari Beni, Jacob Manuel, Ning Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neural Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCanonical correlationComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkBrain–computer interfaceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)CorrelationSpeech recognitionElectroencephalographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We presented a comparative study on the training methodologies of a convolutional neural network (CNN) for the detection of steady-state visually evoked potentials (SSVEP). Two training scenarios were also compared: user-independent (UI) training and user-dependent (UD) training. APPROACH: The CNN was trained in both UD and UI scenarios on two types of features for SSVEP classification: magnitude spectrum features (M-CNN) and complex spectrum features (C-CNN). The canonical correlation analysis (CCA), widely used in SSVEP processing, was used as the baseline. Additional comparisons were performed with task-related components analysis (TRCA) and filter-bank canonical correlation analysis (FBCCA). The performance of the proposed CNN pipelines, CCA, FBCCA and TRCA were evaluated with two datasets: a seven-class SSVEP dataset collected on 21 healthy participants and a twelve-class publicly available SSVEP dataset collected on ten healthy participants. MAIN RESULTS: The UD based training methods consistently outperformed the UI methods when all other conditions were the same, as one would expect. However, the proposed UI-C-CNN approach performed similarly to the UD-M-CNN across all cases investigated on both datasets. On Dataset 1, the average accuracies of the different methods for 1 s window length were: CCA: 69.1% ± 10.8%, TRCA: 13.4% ± 1.5%, FBCCA: 64.8% ± 15.6%, UI-M-CNN: 73.5% ± 16.1%, UI-C-CNN: 81.6% ± 12.3%, UD-M-CNN: 87.8% ± 7.6% and UD-C-CNN: 92.5% ± 5%. On Dataset 2, the average accuracies of the different methods for data length of 1 s were: UD-C-CNN: 92.33% ± 11.1%, UD-M-CNN: 82.77% ± 16.7%, UI-C-CNN: 81.6% ± 18%, UI-M-CNN: 70.5% ± 22%, FBCCA: 67.1% ± 21%, CCA: 62.7% ± 21.5%, TRCA: 40.4% ± 14%. Using t-SNE, visualizing the features extracted by the CNN pipelines further revealed that the C-CNN method likely learned both the amplitude and phase related information from the SSVEP data for classification, resulting in superior performance than the M-CNN methods. The results suggested that UI-C-CNN method proposed in this study offers a good balance between performance and cost of training data. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed C-CNN based method is a suitable candidate for SSVEP-based BCIs and provides an improved performance in both UD and UI training scenarios.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations158
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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