Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interpretable deep neural networks for single-trial EEG classification

Open access
Sturm, Irene, Lapuschkin, Sebastian, Samek, Wojciech, Müller, Klaus-Robert·2016·Journal of Neuroscience Methods

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.10.008

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Acqualagna, 2015, EEG-based classification of video quality perception using steady state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs), J. Neural Eng., 12, 026012, 10.1088/1741-2560/12/2/026012 · DOI
  2. Blankertz, 2006, The BCI competition III: validating alternative approaches to actual BCI problems, IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil., 14, 153, 10.1109/TNSRE.2006.875642 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Blankertz, 2011, Single-trial analysis and classification of ERP components – a tutorial, NeuroImage, 56, 814, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.048 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Delorme, 2014, Grand average ERP-image plotting and statistics: a method for comparing variability in event-related single-trial EEG activities across subjects and conditions, J. Neurosci. Methods, 250, 3, 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.10.003 · DOI
  5. Fazli, 2009, Subject-independent mental state classification in single trials, Neural Netw., 22, 1305, 10.1016/j.neunet.2009.06.003 · DOI
  6. Lapuschkin, 2016, The layer-wise relevance propagation toolbox for artificial neural networks, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 17, 1
  7. Montavon, 2013, Machine learning of molecular electronic properties in chemical compound space, New J. Phys., 15, 095003, 10.1088/1367-2630/15/9/095003 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Parra, 2005, Recipes for the linear analysis of EEG, NeuroImage, 28, 326, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.032 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Plis, 2014, Deep learning for neuroimaging: a validation study, Front. Neurosci., 8
  10. Porbadnigk, 2013, Single-trial analysis of the neural correlates of speech quality perception, J. Neural Eng., 10, 056003, 10.1088/1741-2560/10/5/056003 · DOI
  11. Tzovara, 2012, The timing of exploratory decision-making revealed by single-trial topographic EEG analyses, NeuroImage, 60, 1959, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.136 · DOI
  12. Yuksel, 2015, A neural network-based optimal spatial filter design method for motor imagery classification, PLOS ONE, 10, e0125039, 10.1371/journal.pone.0125039 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sturm, I., Lapuschkin, S., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
274
Pages
141-145
ISSN
0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2344695102
Cited by
374
References
4
FWCI
21.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
  • Brain Korea 21 Plus Program
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.