Cited by 4EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesNeural dynamics and brain functionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Classification of imperfectly time-locked image RSVP events with EEG device.

Open access
Meng, Jia, Meriño, Lenis Mauricio, Robbins, Kay, Huang, Yufei·2014·Neuroinformatics

Abstract

Classification based on EEG data in an RSVP experiment is considered. Although the latency in neural response relative to the stimulus onset time may be more realistically considered to vary across trials due to factors such as subject fatigue and environmental distractions, it is nevertheless assumed to be time-locked to the stimulus in most of the existing work as a means to alleviate the computational complexity. We consider here a more practical scenario that allows variation in response latency and develop a rigorous statistical formulation for modeling the uncertainty within the varying latency coupled with a likelihood ratio test (LRT) for classification. The new model not only improves the EEG classification performance, but also may predict the true stimulus onset time when this information is not precisely available. We test the proposed LRT algorithm on an EEG data set from an image RSVP experiment and show that, by admitting the latency variation, the proposed approach consistently outperforms a method that relies on perfect time-locking (AUC: 0.88 vs 0.86), especially when the stimulus onset time is not precisely available (AUC: 0.84 vs 0.71). Furthermore, the predicted stimulus onset times are highly enriched around the true onset time with p-value = 5.2 x 10(44).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12021-013-9203-4

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • EEG based on VEP paradigms prefer to employ the time-series signal as input, which has the strict requirement of being time-locked and contains more obvious features in time sequence.

    “While the EEG based on VEP paradigms prefer to employ the time-series signal as the input, which has the strict requirement of being time-locked and contains more obvious features in time sequence (Basar et al., 1995; Kolev and Schurmann, 2009; Meng et al., 2014).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meng, J., Meriño, L. M., Robbins, K., & Huang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
Corresponding author
Huang, Yufei
Venue
Neuroinformatics
Published
2013-09-15
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
261-275
ISSN
  • 1539-2791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-0089
OpenAlex
W2050591368
Cited by
4
References
21
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Springer US
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (G12MD007591)
  • Army Research Laboratory
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
EEG classification, rapid serial visual presentation, likelihood ratio test
MeSH terms
Brain, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Humans, Visual Perception, Likelihood Functions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review