Comparing user-dependent and user-independent training of CNN for SSVEP BCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".