LASSO Homotopy-Based Sparse Representation Classification for fNIRS-BCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems based on functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) have been used as a way of facilitating communication between the brain and peripheral devices. The BCI provides an option to improve the walking pattern of people with poor walking dysfunction, by applying a rehabilitation process. A state-of-the-art step-wise BCI system includes data acquisition, pre-processing, channel selection, feature extraction, and classification. In fNIRS-based BCI (fNIRS-BCI), channel selection plays a vital role in enhancing the classification accuracy of the BCI problem. In this study, the concentration of blood oxygenation (HbO) in a resting state and in a walking state was used to decode the walking activity and the resting state of the subject, using channel selection by Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) homotopy-based sparse representation classification. The fNIRS signals of nine subjects were collected from the left hemisphere of the primary motor cortex. The subjects performed the task of walking on a treadmill for 10 s, followed by a 20 s rest. Appropriate filters were applied to the collected signals to remove motion artifacts and physiological noises. LASSO homotopy-based sparse representation was used to select the most significant channels, and then classification was performed to identify walking and resting states. For comparison, the statistical spatial features of mean, peak, variance, and skewness, and their combination, were used for classification. The classification results after channel selection were then compared with the classification based on the extracted features. The classifiers used for both methods were linear discrimination analysis (LDA), support vector machine (SVM), and logistic regression (LR). The study found that LASSO homotopy-based sparse representation classification successfully discriminated between the walking and resting states, with a better average classification accuracy (p < 0.016) of 91.32%. This research provides a step forward in improving the classification accuracy of fNIRS-BCI systems. The proposed methodology may also be used for rehabilitation purposes, such as controlling wheelchairs and prostheses, as well as an active rehabilitation training technique for patients with motor dysfunction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".